Back
Jaunpur Custodial Death: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to Four Accused Police Personnel
In a significant blow to police accountability, the on Wednesday rejected the applications of four Uttar Pradesh police personnel charged in the brutal of Krishna Kumar Yadav alias Pujari in Jaunpur in . Justice Samit Gopal, in a detailed 95-page order, relied heavily on the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) which alleged that the accused officers caused grievous injuries to extract a confession and subsequently murdered the victim. The court also noted that were created to portray the death as an accident rather than torture in custody, underscoring the judiciary's growing intolerance towards custodial violence.
High Court's Stern Stance on Custodial Violence
The rejected pleas belong to Jaysheel Tiwari, Ramkrit Yadav, Raj Kumar Verma, and Angad Prasad Chaudhary, all of whom were among the eleven police personnel chargesheeted by the CBI. The , filed under , accuses the officers of murder, causing hurt to extort confession, and . The had framed charges on , and the trial is ongoing, with eleven prosecution witnesses already examined.
The court's reasoning was unambiguous: cases demand a to , as previously held by the . Justice Gopal observed that the accused police personnel had not only violated the of the deceased but had also attempted to subvert justice by creating a fake narrative.
The Tragic Night of
The case traces back to an FIR lodged on , at , Jaunpur, under . According to the FIR, Krishna Kumar Yadav was forcibly taken from his home around 3 a.m. on , by a team comprising the and the then Station House Officer (SHO) of Baksa, along with other personnel. Later that night, the police returned with Krishna, who was allegedly unable to stand and cried out to his mother for help, shouting that the police would kill him. Shortly thereafter, the family was informed that he had died in police custody.
The initial recorded three contusions over the buttocks, lower scapular region, and left arm, attributing death to shock and syncope due to myocardial infarction. However, the CBI's investigation, which was transferred from the state police in following High Court proceedings, painted a starkly different picture.
CBI's Case: From Heart Attack to Blunt Force Trauma
The CBI relied on a subsequent opinion from a medical board at
, which concluded that the deceased had suffered multiple blunt-force injuries. The board stated unequivocally that the cause of death was
"
."
It further noted that the injuries were
, fresh, and collectively sufficient to cause death
. This opinion directly contradicted the initial post-mortem finding and formed the cornerstone of the CBI's charge that the victim was tortured and murdered in custody.
The CBI also alleged that were deliberately created to misrepresent the death as resulting from an accident or an assault by unknown persons, rather than physical torture at the hands of the police. This , the agency argued, was part of a well-planned .
Rejection and Judicial Observations
In denying , the High Court scrutinized the individual circumstances of each applicant. For Jaysheel Tiwari, the court noted that he had allegedly absconded during the investigation, leading to proceedings under . He subsequently absconded again during trial before his arrest. The court held that this conduct indicated and a likelihood of absconding, thereby rejecting his plea.
Ramkrit Yadav and Raj Kumar Verma had sought for the second time, having had their earlier applications rejected in . The court found no fresh grounds to reconsider their pleas, emphasizing that cannot by itself constitute a basis for .
The court also referred to its own earlier observations in a related case, describing the incident as involving
"
and death with robbery in a well-planned
"
and constituting a
"clear-cut case of
and
."
This strong language reflected the judiciary's condemnation of the conduct of the accused officers.
's Precedent on Custodial Deaths
A crucial factor in the High Court's decision was the 's order of , which cancelled the granted to co-accused Jitendra Singh. The Apex Court had observed that allegations against police officers warrant a " " when considering . It also noted the gravity of the charge under and directed the accused to surrender before the CBI court. This precedent reinforced the 's stance that in such cases cannot be granted lightly.
Implications for Police Accountability
The judgment sends a strong signal to law enforcement agencies that will be met with severe judicial scrutiny. By rejecting and ordering the trial to be expedited, the High Court has underscored the need for swift justice in cases, which are often plagued by delayed proceedings and . Legal experts view this as a positive step towards reinforcing the under , which explicitly prohibits torture in custody.
The case also highlights the critical role of , such as the AIIMS medical board opinion, in countering initial false narratives. The court's reliance on such evidence may set a precedent for future cases where post-mortem reports are contested.
Conclusion
The 's rejection of for the four accused police personnel is a reaffirmation of the principle that no one is above the law, especially those entrusted with its enforcement. The court has directed the trial court to and avoid unnecessary adjournments, ensuring that the case progresses without delay. As the trial moves forward, the legal community will be watching closely to see how the broader issues of police accountability and custodial violence are addressed in the final verdict.
