The High Court of Orissa has denied bail to three police officers accused in a 2017 custodial death case, ruling that the victim’s status as a “history-sheeter” does not diminish his fundamental constitutional rights. Justice V. Narasingh, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the state’s duty to ensure the safety of individuals in custody remains absolute, regardless of their past criminal background. The petitioners—a constable, an additional sub-inspector, and a sub-inspector—have been in custody since August 2025 in connection with the death of Akash Mahuria, whose passing triggered prolonged legal battles and raised significant questions regarding police conduct during arrests.

The court’s decision arrives after a detailed review of statements from multiple witnesses and medical reports that pointed to systemic irregularities. In denying the bail applications for the three personnel, the High Court observed that the gravity of the accusations, combined with evidence suggesting attempts to manipulate medical documentation, necessitated continued incarceration to prevent interference with the ongoing trial. The court underscored that the sanctity of the judicial process must be preserved when law enforcement officers are themselves charged with the violation of the very rights they are sworn to protect.

Evidence of Violence and Medical Discrepancies

The incident, which took place on January 30, 2017, initially resulted in a case against the deceased under sections relating to rash driving, filed by one of the petitioners. However, the subsequent investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) following complaints by the mother of the deceased and intervention by the Odisha Human Rights Commission shifted the narrative entirely. The CID investigation eventually led to charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those for murder, wrongful confinement, and causing the disappearance of evidence.

A critical turning point in the court’s decision was the analysis of the post-mortem report, which detailed 24 separate injuries on the body of the deceased. Forensic evidence documented various abrasions, contusions, and lacerations, alongside a linear fracture of the occipital bone. The court noted the discrepancy between the police’s earlier portrayal of the event as an accidental motorcycle fall and the medical findings. The bench remarked that the state’s attempt to justify these injuries as accidental through multiple medical opinions was a concerning development. During the proceedings, Justice Narasingh stated, "The right to life under Article 21 is not contingent upon the antecedents or social standing of an individual."

Constitutional Protections in Custody

The legal arguments presented by the petitioners focused largely on their prolonged period of incarceration and the assertion that the death was an unfortunate accident occurring during a high-speed chase. They also questioned the credibility of the test identification parade, citing the significant time elapsed and adverse publicity. However, these contentions were countered by the state and the informant, who presented testimonies from witnesses describing the victim being assaulted with pipes by the police team and then transported in a jeep while injured.

The court scrutinized these testimonies, finding that they provided a consistent narrative of excessive force. By referencing established legal precedents such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal , the court reaffirmed that the protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India do not cease when a person is taken into custody. The court held that police custody is not a license to disregard basic human rights. Reflecting on the nature of policing in a democratic society, the court cited a historical principle, noting, "We are not to forget that the policeman is the public and the public is the policeman."

Path Toward Trial Resolution

The High Court has directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, emphasizing that the current order is limited to the adjudication of bail and should not be construed as a final opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioners have been granted the liberty to renew their plea for bail before the trial court after the examination of material witnesses, provided the trial process moves forward without further obstruction.

The case serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary's role in monitoring the conduct of state agencies in cases involving custodial death. For the family of the deceased, the High Court’s refusal to grant bail to the accused officers represents a step toward accountability, particularly following the protracted process of moving the investigation from local police to the CID. The court has maintained that the integrity of the witnesses and the overall fairness of the trial remain paramount. As the trial proceeds in the court of the District & Sessions Judge, Koraput, the focus will remain on whether the evidence of assault and the alleged framing of records can be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt, marking a significant chapter in the discourse on police accountability within the state. The matter now awaits the commencement of the evidentiary phase of the trial, with the court monitoring the timeline for completion.