Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Saida Khatoon, W/o. Tufail Ahmed alias Saiyad Tufail – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Vandana Dadel – Respondent
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 571 of 2025
Decided On : 18-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Human Rights and Criminal Justice
Headnote
(B) Criminal Procedure - Custodial Death - Statutory inquiry - Necessity of independent judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) of CrPC or Section 196(2) of BNSS - Inquiry by Executive Magistrate insufficient - Duty of authorities to ensure accountability and transparency. (Paras 96, 97)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners alleged that the deceased was subjected to severe custodial torture by police personnel leading to his death. They raised concerns regarding illegal detention, falsification of documents, and manipulation of medical reports. The respondents denied these allegations, claiming the deceased was an active member of a banned organization and sustained fatal injuries during a road accident while attempting to evade arrest. Discrepancies were noted in medical records and remand orders, leading to judicial scrutiny of the official documentation and the circumstances surrounding the death.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the custodial death allegations raised fundamental issues regarding the violation of constitutional safeguards. Upon reviewing the medical records, admission registers, and contradictory statements provided by health officials and the investigating agency, the court identified significant gaps in the procedure. Emphasizing the requirement for an impartial investigation, the court held that any inquiry into a custodial death must comply with statutory mandates and be conducted by a judicial officer rather than an executive authority to ensure rule of law.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the deceased died due to custodial torture or a road accident, the validity of the medical fitness certificates produced, and the adequacy of the inquiry mechanism currently employed for alleged custodial deaths.
Ratio Decidendi: Custodial violence constitutes an affront to the rule of law. A judicial inquiry is mandatory for all custodial deaths to ensure institutional accountability and to protect the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty under Article 21, as per established jurisprudence.
Result: Petition disposed of with a direction to the relevant district authority to initiate a de novo judicial inquiry under Section 196(2) of the BNSS.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate Mr. Ayush Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General, Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines III, Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC Mines III
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner alleges custodial torture and death in violation of d.k. basu guidelines. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 2. state denies custody claims, citing criminal background and medical records inconsistency. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 3. petitioner argues procedural failure during remand and documented custodial brutality. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 4. state asserts injury resulted from accident, not custodial torture. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 5. judicial inquiry mandated for custodial death under bnss/crpc. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
The instant application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding against the contemnors-opposite parties as also for direction to initiate departmental proceeding against the opposite parties for deliberate and intentional non-compliance of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416.
Factual Aspect:
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings available on record, reads as under:
3. By way of filing the instant contempt petition, the petitioner raises serious concerns regarding the administration of the criminal justice system in the State of Jharkhand and victimization of citizens in violation of all constitutional safeguards.
4. The petitioner no. 01 is the mother of the deceased namely Mahfuz Ahmad who succumbed to death due to alleged custodial violence in the lockup of Nawa Bazar Police Station and Superintendent of Police residence, Palamu. Petitioner no. 02 is the father of the deceased and petitioner no. 3 is the brother of deceased.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the incident commenced on 1st of March, 2025 when the deceased was at his Nursing Home namely, "Sayed Ana Nursing Home" which was a rented property from landlord Vishun Dev Oraon.
6. It is alleged that one A.S.I. Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Singh with Chintu Kumar at around 5:30 P.M. and other police officers, as arrayed in the Cause Title of this petition, illegally and mercilessly dragged the deceased to the Police Station. When the landlord objected he was also dragged with the deceased.
7. It is stated that soon thereafter the petitioner no. 03 got information, from one Ashok Kumar Yadav a localized from where illegally the deceased was dragged to the police station, that his brother was dragged in the police Jeep and was taken to the Nawabazar Police Station by the officers of the Nawabazar Police Station. At around 8:00 P.M. the petitioners rushed to the Nawabazar Police Station and met the landlord namely Vishun Deb Oraon who informed that the contemnors have left him [Vishun Deb Oraon] but have brutally assaulted the deceased. Soon after that when the petitioners tried to meet the officials, it is alleged that one of the contemnors namely Manoj Kumar Mandal ASI misbehaved with the petitioners and threatened them to go back.
8. Further case has been made out that the petitioners saw screaming of the deceased at the time when the deceased was going through the custodial torture in the police lock-up. It is alleged that the petitioners and the landlord Vishun Deb Oraon have evidenced that the deceased was hanged upside down naked and the officials have crossed all limits of brutality by not leaving a single body part un-assaulted.
9. It is further alleged that after the custodial assault by the officials of Nawabazar Police Station in the night of 1st March, 2025, the next day i.e., on 2nd March, 2025, the officer-in-charge of Chattarpur Police Station came to Nawabazar Poli
