Judicial Restraint vs. Constitutional Accountability: Gujarat HC Rules on Custodial Death Plea

In a significant ruling concerning the limits of writ jurisdiction in criminal cases, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has dismissed a petition seeking an immediate FIR in a custodial death matter. Justice D.N. Ray, presiding over the case, ruled that the judiciary cannot bypass the sequential statutory framework established by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , 2023, even when grave allegations of police misconduct are involved.

The Tragedy at Vejalpur

The case involves the death of Jairuddin Gyasuddin Shaikh, who died shortly after being taken into police custody on May 18, 2026. The petitioner, Tofik Shaikh, alleged that his father died due to custodial assault and the administration of unknown substances while at the Vejalpur Police Station. Despite the petitioner’s efforts to trigger an investigation and register an FIR, the local authorities remained hesitant, leading the family to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Robin Bhatt, argued that under the landmark Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh ruling, the registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed. He contended that the state’s inaction was arbitrary and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, necessitating immediate intervention to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Conversely, the State, represented by Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave, argued that the petition was premature. Citing a catena of Supreme Court decisions, including Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and the recent 2026 judgment in Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra , the prosecution maintained that a petitioner must exhaust all statutory remedies—namely, reporting to higher police officials and then the jurisdictional Magistrate—before rushing to the High Court for relief.

The Court’s Reasoning: Upholding the Statutory Hierarchy

Justice D.N. Ray acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, noting that "a custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society." However, the Court emphasized that judicial precedents, particularly those refined as recently as May 2026, dictate that a High Court should not become a court of first instance for FIR registration.

The Court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 175(3) of the BNSS creates a meaningful barrier to the entertainment of writ petitions in such cases. "Even if I hold that the Commissioner of Police may be biased," Justice Ray remarked, "I cannot automatically include the Magistrate to whom an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Police would lie, in the same bracket."

Key Observations

The judgment is marked by the Court's analytical struggle to balance the mandate of Lalita Kumari with the procedural reality of the Indian judicial system: * "A custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law." * "Lalita Kumari mandates the lodging of an FIR. But the remedy, if such FIR is not lodged, is not provided in Lalita Kumari. It is ironic that even if a Supreme Court mandate is violated by the authorities, various Benches of the Supreme Court... have said that the procedure laid down in the CrPC/BNSS has to be followed." * "There is no mandate in Lalita Kumari (Supra) or in any other judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court by which, on the failure to lodge an FIR, a potential victim/next of kin can approach a High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Future Implications

The petition was ultimately dismissed, with the Court granting the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forums. Crucially, the Court ensured the preservation of vital evidence, documenting a statement by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) confirming that CCTV footage, station diary entries, and medical records from all involved hospitals have been seized and preserved.

This ruling reinforces that while the judiciary is the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights, it will continue to demand strict adherence to procedural protocols, ensuring that the trial courts—not the High Courts—serve as the first line of scrutiny for allegations against investigating agencies.