’10 Girls Picked Up From Homes, Detained Overnight Before FIR’: Rajasthan High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Jodhpur Call Centre Raid

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over a Jodhpur call centre case after finding that ten women, including the four petitioners before it, were prima facie picked up from their homes and detained overnight at Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani on 15 January 2025, before any FIR was registered the following afternoon.

Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the police action was in direct contravention of Section 43(5) BNSS — which prohibits the arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise except in exceptional circumstances recorded in writing and with the prior permission of a Judicial Magistrate — and of Section 179 BNSS, under which women cannot be compelled to appear at a police station for interrogation, their statements being required to be recorded at the place of residence in the presence of a female police officer.

On the sequence of events that culminated in FIR No. 27/2025 at PS Kudi Bhagtasani, the Court observed:

“It becomes abundantly clear from the foregoing sequence of events that on January 15, 2025, in the absence of any FIR and without any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the police picked up as many as ten girls from their homes and brought them to the police station. Not only that, they were also illegally detained at the police station throughout the night. Even more striking is the fact that the FIR was registered only on the following day, i.e., January 16, 2025, at 03:37 PM. As per the FIR, the ten girls were purportedly arrested during a ‘raid’. Furthermore, the events of January 15 namely, the picking up of the girls and their overnight detention finds no mention whatsoever in the FIR.”

The petitions, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS by Lakshita, Laxmi, Soniya and Priyanka Mewara, sought quashing of FIR No. 27/2025 registered at Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur City West, for offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4) and 61(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The FIR had arisen out of “Operation Cyber Shield”, in the course of which the local police claimed to have busted a fraudulent call centre operating near Ranbanka Hotel under the names “Power Break Down Service India” and “Solution Breakdown Service to India”.

Counsel for the petitioners — who said they were merely students employed at the call centre — contended that no prima facie case of cheating or any offence under the IT Act was made out, that they had been apprehended by police personnel on the evening of 15 January 2025 and wrongfully confined at the police station overnight, and that the search and seizure was conducted without authorisation from the competent superior officer.

When the matter was first listed on 21 March 2025, the Court directed SI Shimla and the then SHO Inspector Rajendra Choudhary to file counter affidavits, asked the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, to preserve CCTV footage of the police station for 15 and 16 January 2025, and deputed ACP Anand Singh Rajpurohit of Boranada as Nodal Officer to inquire into the allegations.

On a reading of the material placed by the Nodal Officer, the bench found that his report did “not inspire confidence” and that his conduct suggested an attempt “to shield and protect the erring subordinate police officials”. There were discrepancies between the affidavit of SI Shimla — who claimed the petitioners were released around 9.30 PM — and the ACP’s report, which placed the release at 9.37 PM, while General Diary entries No. 49 and No. 72 of 15 January 2025 contained no record of the petitioners having been brought to the police station. An affidavit by Priyanka Mewara, supported by CCTV footage from her residence between 5.41 PM and 5.43 PM that day, showed SI Shimla taking her and Lakshita away in a government vehicle, and no CCTV footage of the police station was available after 9 PM on 15 January 2025, which the Court treated as giving rise to an adverse inference against the respondents.

On the arrest memo, the Court noted that as per General Diary entry No. 18 of 16 January 2025, SI Shimla had departed the police station only at 9.31 AM that morning and returned at 2.55 PM with the petitioners, after which FIR No. 27/2025 was registered at 3.37 PM. Yet the arrest memo on record was signed by Inspector Rajendra Choudhary — to whom investigation had not yet been entrusted — and already carried the FIR number, raising “a reasonable apprehension that the documents were not prepared contemporaneously”.

Citing the Supreme Court’s mandate in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, the bench held that no person could be detained without proper documentation, including the registration of an FIR or an entry in the general diary, and that the absence of such records in the present case amounted to a “gross violation” of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On the question of transfer of investigation, the Court relied on State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135, Rubabbudin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 2 SCC 200 and R.S. Sodhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 143, all of which recognise the constitutional power of the High Court to entrust an investigation to an independent agency where the allegations are directed against the very police machinery conducting it.

Holding that the case “is not merely one of procedural impropriety but prima facie discloses a grave abuse of authority”, the Court remarked:

“The material on record indicates that ten young girls were unlawfully detained for an entire night, and it appears that a fabricated FIR was subsequently registered to lend legitimacy to such detention. Thereafter, judicial remand was sought on the basis of evidence so procured, ultimately culminating in the filing of a hurried charge sheet. To aggravate the matter further, false documents were created and the CCTV footage from the police station was deleted, thereby obstructing the due course of justice.”

The Court accordingly directed the SHO of Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani to hand over the entire case record to the CBI within one week, asked the agency to complete an independent investigation preferably within six months and submit its report before the competent court, and ordered the trial court — where the charge sheet had already been filed — to defer further proceedings until the CBI report is received. The State authorities were directed to extend full cooperation, and with these directions both Criminal Misc. Petitions stood disposed of.

Title: Lakshita & Ors v State of Rajasthan; Priyanka Mewara v State of Rajasthan & Ors

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1844/2025 connected with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2034/2025

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:18896]

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. M.S. Sisodiya with Mr. Naresh Charniya, Mr. Ashok Kumar Prajapati and Mr. Abdul Latif (in CRLMP 1844/2025); Mr. Sudhir Saruparia with Mr. Ravindra Singh (in CRLMP 2034/2025)

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Anand Singh Rajpurohit, ACP, Boranada, Jodhpur; Mr. Sahdev, SI, SHO, PS Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur