SC Orders CBI Probe Into Custodial Death Of A Chhattisgarh Man And Inaction Of State Officials

It is definitely entirely in the fitness of things that while taking a very grim view of custodial death of a Chhattisgarh man, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Lahra Bai Tamre & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 728 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 840 that was pronounced just recently on August 12, 2026 in the exercise of its extraordinary appellate jurisdiction has deemed it fit to order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the custodial death of a Chhattisgarh man who died four days after being arrested for allegedly possessing six litres of raw Mahua liquor. We need to note that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta found that State authorities had failed to register a criminal case despite a judicial inquiry into the death of one Shravan. It merits noting that the top court rejected the State officials’ explanation that no action was taken because the judicial inquiry report had not reached the police. It merits no reiteration that there has to be absolute zero tolerance for custodial death and all those who are culpable for causing it deliberately must be awarded strictest punishment!

It must also be noted that the top court termed the State’s stand a “cover-up story” and an attempt to “pull the wool over the Court’s eyes”. It thus stood entirely justified that the Apex Court deemed it fit to direct the CBI to immediately register a criminal case and investigate both the custodial death and the conduct of State officials who failed to take appropriate action that was warranted. No denying or disputing it!

It is most refreshing to note that the Apex Court also directed the Chhattisgarh State government to pay Rs 25 lakh as interim compensation to Shravan’s family. It must be borne in mind that the top court directed so after taking into account the ostensible fact that he was the sole breadwinner and had died an unnatural death while in State custody. Absolutely right!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 to put it briefly that, “The petitioners herein, being the legal heirs, i.e., wife and children respectively of Late Shri Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre (Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘deceased’ .), approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.) by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.76 of 2024, seeking relief of calling for entire records from respondent authorities pertaining to deceased and compensation to petitioners for their rehabilitation against custodial death of the deceased Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre who died after arresting by the police of Police Station Seepat/respondent No.5.”

To be sure, the Bench points out in para 3 that, “In sum and substance, the petitioners were aggrieved of the rank inaction shown by the respondents in investigating the custodial death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi, and also sought a direction to the State to grant appropriate compensation to the petitioners.”

As things stands, the Bench lays bare in para 4 disclosing that, “The High Court while deciding the writ petition vide judgment dated 3rd October, 2024, held that Shri Shravan Suryavanshi was subjected to custodial violence and died as a result thereof. Inspite thereof, it granted meagre compensation quantified at Rs.1 lakh to the petitioners and completely overlooked the prayer made for directing action against the officers who were responsible for the custodial death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before us by way of this instant special leave petition.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 5 while elaborating briefly on the facts of the case stating that, “The deceased was apprehended in connection with FIR No.47 dated 18th January, 2024, lodged at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. As per the FIR, the deceased was found in possession of three bottles, each having a capacity of 2 litres, containing raw Mahua liquor, i.e., a total quantity of 6 litres, valued at Rs.1,200/-. The deceased was arrested by Head Constable No.195, Uma Shankar Rathore, of Police Station Seepat and was taken to the police station along with the seized articles. Pursuant to his arrest and remand, the deceased was lodged at Central Jail, Bilaspur, from where he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, on 21st January, 2024, owing to deterioration in his health. He passed away on 22nd January, 2024 at about 6:00 a.m. while undergoing treatment. The dead body of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi was thereafter sent for postmortem examination. The following injuries were noticed by the medical board constituted to conduct post-mortem upon the dead body: -

1. Bleeding from the tip of the penis.

2. Laceration on the occipital scalp, measuring 4 × 2 × 0.5 cm, without stitches, accompanied by swelling and bleeding.

3. Swelling with redness just above the right wrist.

4. Swelling on both legs.

5. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the outer side of the right thigh, measuring 4 × 2 cm.

6. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the back of the body, at the nape of the neck, measuring 4 × 3 cm.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 mentioning that, “The post-mortem examination recorded the cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to complications owing to head injury caused by a hard and blunt object. The post-mortem report further recorded that the injuries were antemortem and opined regarding their approximate age as follows:

1. Injury No.2 (laceration on the occipital scalp) was apparently within one day;

2. Injury No.3 (swelling with redness above the right wrist) was apparently within two days; and

3. Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 (contusions on the outer side of the right thigh and at the nape of the neck) were apparently 2 to 6 days old.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “As the deceased was in custody at the time of his death, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, issued a letter dated 22nd January, 2024, addressed to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, requesting that a judicial inquiry be conducted into the custodial death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi. Pursuant thereto, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, referred the matter to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who in turn, assigned the inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short, ‘CrPC’.) to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, conducted the inquiry, and submitted a detailed report dated 22nd July, 2024, opining that the death of the deceased appeared to have been caused due to complications arising from the head injury.”

Lamentably, the Bench observes in para 9 that, “The offence alleged against the deceased was punishable with imprisonment which could extend to three years, besides the prescribed fine. Thus, a person who had been taken into custody in connection with an offence carrying a maximum sentence of three years ultimately died while in the custody of the State, allegedly on account of injuries sustained during the period of such custody.”

Most lamentably, the Bench points out in para 10 that, “The High Court, having found that the death of the deceased was on account of the violence committed upon him during custody, disposed of the matter by granting a pittance of compensation quantified at Rs.1 lakh and, at the same time, did not issue any consequential direction for registration of an FIR or for conducting an investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death of the deceased. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before us by way of this Special Leave Petition.”

Most alarmingly, the Bench minces just no words to point out in para 14 that, “It is not in dispute that the custodial death of the deceased was inquired into by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, under Section 176 CrPC and the inquiry report was submitted on 22nd July, 2024. These facts are borne out from the record and have also been noticed by the High Court. In this backdrop, the stance of blissful ignorance taken by the senior officers of the State of Chhattisgarh, including the Principal Secretary (Home); the Director General of Police and the Director General (Prisons), is sacrilegious and reflects a disturbing disregard of the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths.”

Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The explanation offered that neither any police action nor any disciplinary action was taken against the persons responsible because the judicial inquiry report had not been served upon the police officials is a cover-up story and an attempt to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes. It is pertinent to note that in the reply filed by the State before the High Court, the State had itself disclosed that the judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC had been instituted and that the inquiry report was awaited. The said reply, therefore, clearly establishes that the State authorities were conscious of the judicial inquiry into the custodial death and were awaiting its outcome. The said inquiry report was available on the record when the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the writ petition. Thus, the submission made by the Director General of Police before this Court that there was no occasion to register a criminal case as the judicial inquiry report had not been received by the police officials is patently false and wholly reprehensible.”

It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench observes in para 16 that, “That apart, we have seen the medical reports of the deceased Shravan and find that a clear attempt was made to mislead the inquiry because, in the medical report prepared at the jail at the time of his death, the cause of death was recorded as cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration pneumonitis, with the diagnosis being alcoholic withdrawal and delirium tremens. There is no reference whatsoever in the said medical report to the head injury or any of the other injuries subsequently noticed in the post-mortem report, which recorded multiple external injuries and opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury and its complications caused by a hard and blunt object. The post-mortem report was for the first time placed on record with an additional affidavit filed by the State in compliance of the order dated 28th July, 2026. The petitioners have clearly alleged that, for the first time, they have been able to lay hands on the same. The post-mortem was conducted in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and bears his signatures, presumably because the same was undertaken during the course of the inquiry under Section 176 CrPC.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 17 that, “Having regard to the age of the injuries noted in the post-mortem report, particularly Injury No. 2, being the laceration on the occipital scalp which was opined to be within one day, and Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 which were opined to be 2 to 6 days old, the possibility of the deceased having sustained these multiple injuries spread over the period of his custody cannot be ruled out. The facts, therefore, clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Shri Shravan, which the State authorities conveniently and deliberately tried to cover up. The fact that the post-mortem report was not placed before the High Court and that the relevant material was brought on record only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court further highlights the dilatory approach adopted by the State authorities.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 18 noting that, “In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the ends of justice require that the investigation into the circumstances leading to the custodial death of Shri Shravan be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (For short, “CBI”.) and that all officials found responsible for the custodial violence, upon completion of the investigation, be proceeded against and prosecuted in accordance with law.”

In addition, the Bench then also further directs in para 19 holding that, “Accordingly, the Director, CBI, shall forthwith ensure registration of a regular criminal case in relation to the custodial death of Shri Shravan. The investigation shall be entrusted to a senior officer of CBI and shall be conducted expeditiously. The report of the Investigating Officer shall be placed before this Court for its perusal on the next date of hearing. The conduct of the concerned State officials in failing to take appropriate steps pursuant to the submission of the judicial inquiry report shall also be duly examined and made a part of the investigation.”

Do note, the Bench then directs in para 20 noting that, “The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh shall ensure that the complete records of the case are transmitted to the Director CBI through a special messenger within a week from today.”

Truly speaking, the Bench points out in para 21 that, “The finding recorded by the High Court that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family and that he died an unnatural death on account of violence suffered during the period of his custody with the State is not even disputed by the State of Chhattisgarh.”

Most commendably, the Bench then directs and holds in para 22 that, “Thus, as an interim measure, we direct that compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (TwentyFive Lakhs Only) shall be paid by the State of Chhattisgarh to the petitioners herein. The final quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners shall be determined while adjudicating the instant petition. The interim compensation as directed above shall be paid into the bank account of petitioner No.1-Smt. Lahra Bai Tamre within a period of four weeks from today. The account details shall be furnished by learned counsel for the petitioners to learned counsel appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh within a period of seven days.”

What’s more, the Bench then also directs and holds in para 23 that, “A copy of this order shall be electronically transmitted to the Principal Secretary (Home), State of Chhattisgarh; Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh; Director General (Prisons), State of Chhattisgarh; and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.”

Finally, the Bench then draws the curtains of this robust judgment directing in para 24 that, “List again on 13th October, 2026.”

In sum, we thus see that the Apex Court has most commendably ordered CBI probe into the Chhattisgarh custodial death of a man named Shravan and so also a reasonable compensation to the family who are the petitioner of Rs 25 lakh and who earlier was awarded a pittance of just Rs 1 lakh by the Chhattisgarh High Court. There can be just no gainsaying that if those involved in custodial death are spared, it sets a very dangerous and bad precedent that men in uniform stand above the majesty of the law which cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances! This is exactly what is the bottom-line of this notable judgment which alone credibly explains why CBI probe is also ordered by the top court!