Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto vs Mr. Rajiv Ranjan on 11 December, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
Court on its Own Motion
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Home Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Superintendent of Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand
5. The Dy S.P., Seraikela-Kharsawan. ...Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner/Victim :Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AG
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
---------
Reserved on: 08.12.2025 Pronounced on: 11/ 12 /2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. One Bhanumati Mahto, wife of Tarun Mahto addressed a letter to this Court leveling serious allegation of illegal arrest, torture and threat to implicate in a false case to her husband by the Officer-in-Charge, Ichagarh police station upon which cognizance was taken by this Court suo motu on 05.12.2025 and the following order came to be passed:
"02/Dated: 05.12.2025 We have gone through the letter bearing Diary No. 14324 dated 02.12.2025 received from one Smt. Bhanumati Mahto, wife of Sri. Tarun Mahto, resident of village Sridungri, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan alleging illegal arrest, torture and threat to implicate in false case of her husband, namely Tarun Mahto, by Ichagarh Police.
We deem it appropriate to treat this letter as a writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.Page 1 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
Let the same be registered by the Registry accordingly. Notice to the respondents.
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G., waives service of notice for all the respondents and seeks time to get instructions and file counter affidavit. Let the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella Kharsawan appear before this Court on the next date of hearing along with the relevant records and also recordings of DVR of the CCTV Cameras installed at the concerned Police Station.
List on 8th December, 2025."
3. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Superintendent of Police Seraikella-Kharsawan is present with the record and incidentally the DGP Jharkhand is also present though in another case and accordingly while reserving the order relating to the aspect of the alleged arrest, torture and implication, the Court passed the following order:
"03/Dated: 08.12.2025
1. In compliance to the order dated 05.12.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella Kharsawan is present in person and states that since there is no CCTV Camera installed in the concerned police station, therefore, the recordings thereof could not be produced.
2. He has placed on record copy of office order no. 1692 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025 which goes to indicate that the Police Inspector one Mr. Vikramaditya Pandey has been placed under suspension.
3. Heard.
4. Order reserved.
5. Incidentally, the DGP also happens to be present in Court in connection with another case, the Court has interacted with her and informed about the blatant violation of human rights in the State of Jharkhand given the fact that this is the second case which has come up before the Court within 48 hours. We hope and trust that the DGP would take all necessary and correctional steps in ensuring that there is no violation of human rights in the State and issue necessary instructions in this regard forthwith."Page 2 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
4. The Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan has appeared and placed on record the status report which read as under:
"सरायकेला-खरसावाँ िजलादे श सं ा- 1692/2025 आवेिदका मानुमित महतो, पित-त ण महतो, ाम सीडीडूंगरी, पो -थाना-आिद पुर, िजला-सरायकेला-खरसाय का आवेदन प अधोह ा री के कायालय म ा आ। उ आवेदन प म विणत त ों के आलोक म इस कायालय का ापां क-371/गो० िदनां क-23.11.2025 एवं ापां क-5425/गो०. िदनां क-26.11.2025 ारा अनुम ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, वा ल को जाँ च-पड़ताल करने हे तु िनदिशत िकया गया। उनके ारा जाँ च-पड़ताल कर अपने कायालय का ापां क-1805/2025, िदनां क-02.12.2025 ारा ाथिमक जाँ च ितवेदन समिपत िकया गया है । िजसम उ ेख िकया गया है िक "िदनां क-19.11.2025 को समय 02:20 बजे राि म पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ को दू रभाष के मा म से सूवना ा ई िक डु मटॉड मोड़ पर कुछ यों के ारा वाहनों को रोक कर सड़क को अव िकया जा रहा है । इस संबंध म थाना भारी के ारा स ा सं0-04/25, िदनां क-19.11.2025 दज करते ए आव क कारवाई हे तु पु०अ०िन० हीरालाल कुमार, आर ी /139 नरे श कुमार यादव, चौकीदार 5/10 सनातन महली एवं चालक आर ी/1143 ह रश च ित रया को डु मटॉड भेजा गया। पुनः 02:50 बजे राि पु०अ०िन० हीरालाल कुमार के ारा दू रभाष के मा म से थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ को बताया गया िक 1. त ण महतो, पे०-सदान महतो, ीडु गंरी, थाना आिद पुर. 2 राम कृ ा महतो, पे०-शरत च महतो, सा०- मानीकुई, थाना-चा ल 3. धरनीधर महतो, पे ०- ० जलघर महतो, सा०-बां सा, थाना- चौका, 4. सुधां शु महतो, पे०-हरे कृ ा महतो, सा०-िदयाडीह, थाना-ईचागढ़, 5. शंकरे श सहदे व, सा०-ईचागढ़, 6. बी०के० महतो, सा०-आिद पुर, थाना-आिद पुर सभी िजला- सरायकेला-खरसावाँ अ 15-20 अ ात यों के साथ िमल कर आने-जाने वाले वाहनों को रोक कर सड़क अव कर रह ह। िजसके प ात समय 02:55 बजे पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य थाना भारी, ईचागढ़, हवलदार राजेश कुमार, आर ी/119 च दे व उरॉव के साथ डु मटॉड़ मोड़ थान िकये। जहाँ उपरो नािमत छः यो ारा वाहन सं ा-JH05AM-6111 एवं JH05DF-7782 को सड़क के बीचों-बीच खड़ा कर सड़क पर आने-जाने वाले वाहनों को रोक रहे थे। िजससे सड़क पूण प से अव होकर वाहनों का ल ा जाम लग गया था। पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ के ारा त ण महतो से सड़क अव करने का कारण पूछने पर गाली-गलौज करने लगे तथा उ होकर अपने गाड़ी से ड ा िनकाल कर आर ी / 139 नरे श कुमार यादव के िसर पर जान मारने के िनयत से घातक वार कर िदया। िजससे आर ी / 139 नरे श कुमार यादव का िसर फट गया एवं खुन Page 3 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 बहने लगा एवं साथ गये चौकीदार सनातन महली के पैरों पर भी ड ा से वार िकया गया, िजससे चौकीदार भी ज ी हो गया। उ िहं सक झड़प को भां पते ए एवं िविध- व था िबगडते दे खकर थाना भारी के ारा उपल बल के मदद से त ण महतो को पकड़ िलया गया, िजससे दे खकर त ण महतो के साथ आये अ सभी गाड़ी म बैठकर भागने लगे। पर ु खराब रा े के चलते दोनों गाड़ी दु घटना हो गयी। िजसके बाद उपल पुिलस पदािधकारी एवं बल के ारा तीन और 1. राम कृ महतो, 2. धरनीधर महतो, 3. सुधां शु महतो को भी पकड़ िलया गया एवं अ भागने म सफल रहे ।
पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ के ारा डु मटॉड मोड म ही समय 04:50 बजे इस घटना के संबंध म टिकत बयान दज करते ए पकड़ाये चारों यों को सरकारी काय म बाधा उ कर पुिलस किमयों के उपर जानलेवा हमला करने के आरोप म धारा-189(2)/189(4)/191(2)/ 191(3) /221/121(1)/121(2)/132/109 BNS के तहत आरोिपत करते ए िविधवत् िगर ार िकया गया एवं त ण महतो के पास से िमले ड ा एव दोनों वाहनों को ज ी सूची बना कर ज िकया गया। िगर ार चारों अिभयु ों को थाना लाया गया। इस घटना के संबंध म ईचागढ़ थाना का सं0-79/25, िदनां क-19.11.2025 धारा- 189(2)/189(4)/191(2) /191(3)/221/121(1)/ 121(2)/132/109 BNS दज िकया गया।
इस कार िविध- व था सम ा को दे खते ए पु०अ०िन० अिवनाश कुमार, थाना भारी, ित लडीह भी थाना सश बल के साथ घटना थल डु मटॉड़ मोड़ के पास प ँ चे थे। पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, थाना भारी, इं चागढ़ के ारा ज ी आर ी /139 नरे श कुमार यादव, चौिकदार 5/10 सनातन महली को पु०अ०िन० अिवनाश कुमार, थाना भारी, ित लडीह के साथ ईलाज हे तु अ ताल भेजा गया। थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ के ारा बताया गया िक जब पु०अ०िन० िहरालाल कुमार बल के साथ डु मटॉड मोड़ प ं चे थे तब त ण महतो एवं उसके सहयोिगयों तथा ामीणों के बीच झड़प हो रही थी। िजससे त ण महतो एवं उसके सहयोगी ज ी ए थे। इस बात की वृि थाना भारी के ारा थाना दै िनकी म की गयी है ।
उ ेखनीय है "पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ ारा झड़प म ए घायल त ण महतो एवं अ उसके सहयोिगयों को ईलाज हे तु अिवल नजदीक के अ ताल म भेजना चािहए था। पर ु ऐसा नहीं िकया गया, िजससे कुछ समय बाद त ण महतो का प रजन एवं पाट के कायकता करीब 50-60 की सं ा म प ँ च कर थाना गेट पर जाम कर िदया तथा हं गामा करने लगे, िजससे िविध- व था िबगड़ने लगी तथा ईलाज नहीं कराया जा सका।" इस संबंध म थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ ारा वरीय पदािधकारी को िवल से सूचना िदया गया।
Page 4 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025दोनों ज ी आर ी /139 नरे श कुमार यादव, चौकीदार 5/10 सनातन महली को पु०अ०िन० अिवनाश कुमार, थाना भारी, ित लडीह के साथ ईलाज हे तु अ ताल भेजा जा रहा था, तो घटना थल पर ामीणों से झड़प के दौरान त ण महतो को चोट लगी थी, तो उसे भी उसी समय थाना भारी, ित लडीह के साथ ही ईलाज हे तु अ ताल भेज िदया जाना चािहए था। पर ु थाना भारी, ईचागढ़ के ारा ऐसा न कर त ण महतो को सीधे थाना लाया गया और बाद म त ण महतो का ईलाज नहीं हो पाया, जो इनके कत के ित घोर लापरवाही, मनमानेपन, गैर पेशेवर रवैया, संदेहा द कायशैली एवं अयो पुिलस पदािधकारी होने को दशाता है ।"
अनुम ल पुिलस पदािधकारी, चा ल के ाथिमक जॉच ितवेदन म उ े खत त ों एवं संल अिभलेखों का अवलोकनोंपरा उ करण म पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, पुिलस के , सरायकेला का आचरण इनके कत के ित घोर लापरवाही, मनमानेपन, गैर पेशेवर रवैया, संदेहा द कायशैली एवं अयो पुिलस पदािधकारी होने का प रचायक है ।
अतः उ आरोप के िलए पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, पुिलस के , सरायकेला को त ाल भाव से सामा जीवन-यापन भ ा पर िनलंिबत िकया जाता है । िनलंबन अविध के दौरान इनका मु ालय पुिलस के , सरायकेला होगा।
Sd/
05.12.2025 पुिलस अधी क, सरायकेला-खरसावाँ ।
ापां क 5631/गो० पुिलस अधी क का कायालय, सरायकेला-खरसावाँ ।
िदनां क 05/12/2025 ितिलिपः -
1. पुिलस उपाधी क (मु०), सरायकेला-खरसावों को सूचनाथ।
2. अनुम ल पुिलस पदािधकारी चा ल को सूचनाथ।
3. प रचारी वर, पुिलस के , सरायकेला को सूचनाथ एवं आव क ि याथ।
4. २0 अ०िन० थम पुिलस के , सरायकेला को सूचनाथ एवं िजलादे श अंिकत करने हे तु आव क ि याथ एवं िनलंिबत पुिलस पदािधकारी को एक ित ह गत करायग।
5. लेखापाल पुिलस कायालय को सूचनाथ एवं आव क ि याथ।
6. पु०अ०िन० िव मािद पा े य, पुिलस के , सरायकेला को सूचनाथ एवं िनदश िदया जाता है िक प ा के 03 (तीन) िदनों के अ र िवभागीय कायवाही के िव अपना बचाव ीकरण समिपत करना सुिनि त कर। िनधा रत अविध तक Page 5 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 बचाव ीकरण अ ा रहने की थित म यह समझा जाएगा िक आपको इस संबंध म कुछ नहीं कहना है , त ात् अनुशासिनक कारवाई कर दी जाएगी।
Sd/-
05.12.2025 पुिलस अधी क, सरायकेला-खरसावाँ ।"
5. The English translation thereof read as under:
"Seraikella-Kharsawan District Order No. 1692/2025 An application of petitioner Bhanumati Mahto, W/o Tarun Mahto, R/o Village-Sidhidungri, P.O. + P.S.-Adityapur, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan received in the Office of the undersigned. In view of the facts mentioned in aforesaid petition, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandil was directed to make investigation vide Memo No. 371/Go., dated 23.11.2025 and Memo No. 5425/Go., dated 26.11.2025 of this office. After conducting investigation, he submitted a primary investigation report vide Memo No. 1805/2025, dated 02.12.2025 of his office. It is mentioned in the report that "on 19.11.2025 at 2:20 PM, P.S.I. Vikramditya Pandey, Officer-in-charge, Ichagarh received a telephonic information that some people are blocking the road by stopping vehicles at Dumtanr Mor. In this regard, a Sanha No. 04/25 dated 19.11.2025 was registered by the Officer-in-charge and A.S.I. Heeralal Kumar, Police/139 Naresh Kumar Yadav, Chowkidar 5/10 Sanatan Mahli and Driver Police/1143 Harish Chandra Tiriya were sent to Dumtanr for necessary action. Again at 2:50 PM, P.S.I. Heeralal Kumar gave telephonic information to Officer-in-charge, Ichagarh that 1. Tarun Mahto, S/o Sadanand Mahto, Sridungri, P.S.- Adityapur, 2. Ram Krishna Mahto, S/o Sharat Chandra Mahto, R/o Manikui, P.S.-Chandil, 3. Dharnidhar Mahto, S/o Late Jaldhar Mahto, R/o Bansa, P.S.- Chauka, 4. Sudhanshu Mahto, S/o Harekrishna Mahto, R/o Diyadih, P.S.-Ichagarh, 5. Shankaresh Sahdeo, R/o Ichagarh, 6. B.K. Mahto, R/o Adityapur, P.S.- Adityapur, all R/o District-Seraikella-Kharsawan along with 15-20 unknown persons were blocking the road by stopping the moving Page 6 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 vehicles. Thereafter, at 2:55 O'clock, P.S.I. Vikramaditya Pandey, Officer-in-charge, Ichagarh, along with Hawaldar Rajesh Kumar and Police/119 Chand Dev Oraon left for Dumtanr Mor. At that place, the aforesaid named six persons had parked Vehicle No. JH05AM-6111 and JH05DF-7782 in the middle of road and they were stopping the vehicles moving through that road. Consequently, the road was completely blocked and there was long queue of vehicles. When P.S.I. Vikramaditya Pandey, Officer-in- charge, Ichagarh asked Tarun Mahto reason for blocking the road then he began to hurl abusive language and he became aggressive and took out a stick from his vehicle and gave severe blow on the head of Police/139 Naresh Kumar Yadav with intention to kill him. It caused severe head injury to Police/139 Naresh Kumar Yadav and he started bleeding, and chowkidar Sanatan Mahli accompanying him was also assaulted on his feet with the stick, due to which Chowkidar also got injured. Sensing the violent clash and seeing the law-and-order situation deteriorating, the Officer In- charge apprehended Tarun Mahto with help of the available force. Seeing this, all the other people who had come with Tarun Mahto boarded in the car and started running away. But due to the bad condition of the road, both the vehicles met with accidents. Thereafter, three more people namely 1. Ram Krishna Mahto, 2. Dharnidhar Mahto and 3. Sudhanshu Mahto were also caught by the police officers and the force available there. But the others managed to escape.
P.S.I. Vikramaditya Pandey, Officer In-charge, Ichagarh recorded his self-typed statement in connection with this incident at Dumtanr Mor at 04:50 O'clock and duly arrested the aforesaid four persons charging them under Sections 189(2)/189(4)/191(2)/ 191(3)/221/121(1)/121 (2)/132/ 109 of BNS for obstructing government work and carrying out a murderous attack on police personnel. The stick found in the possession of Tarun Mahto and both the vehicles were seized after preparing a seizure list. The said four arrested accused persons were brought to the police station. In Page 7 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 connection with this incident, Ichagarh PS Case No. 79/25 dated 19.11.2025 was registered under sections 189(2)/189(4)/191(2)/191(3)/221/121(1)/121(2)/132/109 of BNS. In view of the law-and-order problem, P.S.I. Avinash Kumar, Officer In-charge, Tiruldih also reached the place of incident near Dumtand Mor along with armed police forces. P.S.I. Vikramaditya Pandey, Officer In-charge, Ichagarh sent the injured Police/139 Naresh Kumar Yadav and Chowkidar 5/10 Sanatan Mahali to the hospital for medical treatment along with Sub-Inspector Avinash Kumar, Officer In-charge, Tiruldih. The Officer In-charge, Ichagarh, stated that when Sub-Inspector Hiralal Kumar arrived at Dumtand Mor with the armed forces, a clash was taking place there between Tarun Mahato & his men and villagers and due to that, Tarun Mahto and his men were injured. The entry of this fact in police station diary has been done by the Officer in-Charge. It is noteworthy that P.S.I. Vikramaditya Pandey, Officer In-charge, Ichagarh, should have immediately sent Tarun Mahto and his men, who were injured in the clash, to the nearest hospital for treatment. But this was not done. Shortly thereafter, around 50-60 persons including Tarun Mahto's family members and party workers arrived there and blocked the police station gate and began a ruckus and due to that, there arose a law-and-order problem and so their medical treatment could not be done. The Officer In- charge, Ichagarh, delayed informing senior officials about this. Both the injured police/139 Naresh Kumar Yadav and Chowkidar 5/10 Sanatan Mahali were being sent to the hospital for treatment along with P.S.I. Avinash Kumar, Officer In-charge, Tiruldih. Tarun Mahato was also injured during the clash with the villagers at the place of occurrence, so he should also have been immediately sent to the hospital for treatment along with Officer In- charge, Tiruldih at that time. But, the Officer In-charge, Ichagarh, instead of doing so, brought Tarun Mahto directly to the police station and later, Tarun Mahto had not got treatment, which Page 8 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 reflects his gross negligence, arbitrariness, unprofessional attitude, questionable work style, and incompetence as a police officer. After perusal of the facts mentioned in the primary investigation report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandil, and the attached records, it appears that the conduct of P.S.I. Vikramaditya Pandey, Police Line, Seraikela, in the above case is indicative of gross negligence, arbitrariness, unprofessional attitude, questionable work style, and incompetence as a police officer. Therefore, P.S.I. Krishna Kumar Vikramaditya Pandey, Police Line, Seraikela, is suspended with immediate effect for the aforesaid act. Subsistence allowance shall be payable to him. He shall report to the headquarters Police Line, Seraikella during the period of suspension.
Sd/-
05.12.25 Superintendent of Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan.
Memo No. 5631/Go Office of the Superintendent, Seraikela-Kharsawan. Dated 05/12/2025 Copy to:
1. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Mu.), Seraikela-Kharsawan for information.
2. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandil for information.
3. Seargent Major, Police Line, Seraikela for information and necessary action.
4. Reserved Sub-Inspector, First Police Station, Seraikela for information and for writing the District Order for necessary action, and will hand over a copy to the suspended police officer.
5. Accountant, Police Office, for information and necessary action.
6. P.S.I. Vikramaditya Pandey, Police Line, Seraikela, is hereby directed to ensure that he submits explanation in his defense Page 9 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 against the departmental proceeding within 03 (three) days of receipt of this letter. If the explanation in his defense is not received within the prescribed period, it will be deemed that he has nothing to say in this regard. Thereafter, disciplinary action will be taken.
Sd/-
05.12.25 Superintendent of Police Seraikela-Kharsawan
6. Even though the respondent would have this Court believe that the husband of the petitioner was beaten up by the villagers, however, we are prima facie of the opinion that this is a case of custodial torture and beating. Why we observe so is based upon the contents of the letter addressed to the His Excellency, the President of India, copy whereof has been sent to one of us ( Tarlok Singh, C.J.) on which the cognizance has been taken and the same read as under:
सेवा म,
महामिहम रा पित,
रा पित भवन, नई िद ी-110004
िवषय :- जान मारने की िनयत से बंदी बनाकर बबरता पूवक बुरी तरह मारपीट कर अंग भंग कर दे ने और पूरे शरीर म ज एवं तािड़त करने, गोली मार दे ने का यास करने तथा पुरानी रं िजश अपनी काली करतूतों को िछपाने के िलए झूठे मुकदम म फंसा कर जेल भेज दे ने के संबंध म।
महाशय, सिवनय िनवेदन यह है िक म भानुमित महतो, पित त ण महतो, पता ीडु ं गरी, डाक + थाना आिद पुर, िजला सरायकेला-खरसावां , झारख 832109, की िनवासी ँ । महाशय, मेरे पित त ण महतो जो िक ईचागढ़ चुनाव 2024 म झारख लोकतां ि क ा कारी मोचा (JLKM) के पूव ाशी थे, कुल 41.138 वोट लाकर तीसरे थान पर थे ओर अपने िवधान सभा म काफी सि य रहते ए ामीणों की ेक सम ाओं का समाधान करने का यास करते ह।
िदनां क 19 नव र 2025 को समय लगभग 2:45 बजे रात को संजय महतो ने मोबाईल फोन नं0 8084231727 से मुझे सूिचत िकया िक आपके पित त ण महतो को पुिलस Page 10 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 मुठभेर (इ ाउ र) करने के िलए उठाकर ले गया है . आप ज से ज ईचागढ़ थाना जाय।
महाशय, म अपने प रवार के लोगों को सूिचत िकया और एक िकराये का कार लेकर मीना ी दे वी, व ण महतो, िनतेश महतो, सरोज महतो और तपन महतो के साथ ब त ही मु ल से समय लगभग 5:00 बजे सुबह ईचागढ़ थाना प ँ चे, ोंिक सड़क ब त ही जजर थित म थी। थाना प ँ चने पर पाया िक थाना के गेट म ताला लगा आ था वहाँ कोई नहीं था 50 मीटर दू र ा क के एक चेयर म एक िसपाही बैठा आ था। मने उ िसपाही को आवाज दे कर बुलाया तो वह गेट के सामने आकर पू छा िक आपको ा काम है , मने कहा िक आपलोग इस थाना म त ण महतो को लाये ह ा ? तो वह दौड़कर थाना के अ र गया और कुछ दे र बाद अपने साथ 2 पुिलस पदािधकारी को लेकर आया और पूछा आपलोगों को ा काम है , मने कहा त ण महतो से मुझे िमलना है , िफर वो सब भी थाना के अ र गया और कुछ दे र बाद िफर वापस गेट पर आया और कहा िक िकसी को त ण महतो से िमलने का आदे श नहीं है , िफर वो सभी थाने के अ र चला गया, हमलोग थाना के बाहर खड़े रहे िफर दोबारा करीब 1 घंटा बाद पुिलस आया और हमलोगों को अ र आने का आदे श िदये। म और मीना ी दे वी, व ण महतो, तपन महतो, िनतेश महतो, सरोज महतो अ र गये और हमलोग हाजत म दे खने लगे तो पाया िक उस हाजत म कोई नहीं था, िफर हमलोग पूछे तो थाना भारी ने दू सरे हाजत म दे खने को कहे , दू सरे हाजत म जब दे खे उसम त ण महतो ल लुहान और अचेत अव था म पड़े ए थे और शरीर म कोई कपड़ा नहीं था। हमलोग जब आवाज िदये तो मेरे पित दद से कराह रहे थे और रो-रो कर कहने लगे िक मुझे ब त बुरी तरह से मारा गया है , ठीक से बोल भी नहीं पा रहे थे, केवल दद से कराह रहे थे, उनका एक ही बात था िक मुझे यहाँ से लेकर चलो नहीं तो ये लोग यािन ित लडीह थाना भारी, नीमडीह थाना भारी और ईचागढ़ थाना भारी एक जुट होकर अपने चै र म ले जाकर रात से मारपीट कर रहा था और मुझे बराबर इनकाउ र कर दे ने की धमकी दे रहा था। मुझे ब त मारे ह और थाना म 3 और थे उसे भी तीनों थाना के भारी िमलकर धमका रहे थे िक तुमलोग िकसी को भी बतायेगा नहीं िक त ण महतो के साथ मारपीट िकया गया है , तुम सबको भी इससे अिधक मारा जायेगा, इसके बाद त ण महतो पानी मां गने लगा और यह कहने लगा तब थाना भारी ने यह कहने लगा िक त ण मह ो को िकसी भी तरह का कोई भी चीज पानी या कुछ भी नहीं िदया जायेगा, तो हमलोग कहने लगे िक आपलोग ही पानी दे दीिजये , तो भारी ने कहा िक इसका िच ा मत करो, हमलोग इसका ाल रखेग, अब आपलोग इनको छोड़कर बाहर जाय। तब हमलोग कहने लगे िक आपलोग इसको इतना ों मारे , तो उसने कहा िक आपलोग बाहर जाय इनके साथ अभी ब त कुछ बाकी है , इसके बाद नरे श यादव और थाना भारी ब त ही बदतिमजी से बात िकया Page 11 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 और हमलोगों के साथ दु वहार िकया। मुझे िसपाही से गाली-गलौज और डं डा िदखा कर बाहर भागने को कहा। िफर समय लगभग सुबह लगभग 6:00 बजे हमलोगों को बाहर कर िदये , िफर थाना के मेन गेट म ताला लगा िदये , कुछ दे र बाद हाजत से आवाज आने लगा िक बचाओ-बचाओ मर जायेग िफर मेरे पित को बुरी तरह मारपीट करने लगे म थाने के बाहर ामवािसयों को बुलवाये , उस थाने म पूव से िवकास पा ेय एवं नयन सोरे न जो बालू मािफया है उनसे थाना भारी हँ स-हँ स कर बात कर रहा था और मजाक कर रहा था िक इनको तो छठी का दू ध याद िदला दे ग और कभी कोई तरह का हमलोगों के खलाफ कहीं नहीं बोलेगा।
महाशय, िदनां क 19/11/2025 को सुबहक करीब 9:30 बजे थाना के हाजत से बोलेरो गाड़ी म बैठा कर बाहर िनकाल रहा था उस गाड़ी म न र ेट नहीं लगा आ था उसके बाद गेट के पास गाड़ी प ँ चा तो ामीण पूछने लगा िक त ण महतो को कहाँ ले जा रहे ह, उसके बाद पुिलस बोले िक भीड़ हटाओ नहीं तो कुचल दे ग, नहीं मानोगे तो गोली चलवा दे ग, सभी के ऊपर केस कर दे ग, त ण महतो को पुिलस कहने लगा िक भीड़ को कहो िक हट जाये नहीं तो तुमको इनकाउ र कर दे ग और भीड़ के ऊपर गोली चलवा दे ग, िफर भी ामीण नहीं हटा तो वह गाड़ी को पीछे ले गया और िकसी से फोन म बात िकया उसके कुछ दे र बाद डी.एस.पी. साहब आये और उसके साथ वाता आ, वाता◌ी होने के बाद डी.एस.पी. साहब ने घटना के बारे म िलख कर आवेदन दे ने को कहे िक ामीण और म िमलकर आवेदन िदया उसके बाद मने थाना भारी के ऊपर कारवाई करने को कहा तो डी.एस.पी. साहब ने अनुशंसा िकये और कहे िक उसके ऊपर कारवाई की जायेगी। िफर हमलोगों ने पूछा िक त ण महतो को कहाँ ले जायेग तो उसने कहा िक ईलाज के िलए इनको अ ताल ले जायेग, तब हमलोगों ने जाने िदया।
महाशय चां िडल समुदाियक ा के त ण महतो को लेकर तीनों थाना भारी प ँ चा वहाँ त ण महतो को हमलोगों ने ढ़ोकर ा के के अ र ले गये पहले से बैठे डॉ र जया अ वाल उनको दू र से दे खा और पहले से ही बना आ पुजा पुिलस को िदया और िकसी तरह का भी ईलाज नहीं िकया और उसे वहाँ से वहार ायालय, चां िडल ले गये , जहाँ ए.सी.जी.एम. के ायालय म पुिलस नहीं ले जा पा रहा था त ण महतो को ोंिक वह ील चेयर म था वह खड़ा नहीं हो सकता था। इसिलए उनको ायालय प रसर के आँ गन म रखा गया था और पुिलस और ब त सारे वकील खड़े थे लगभग समय शाम 7:00 बज रहा था। वकील के ारा आपि करने पर िक इनको िजतना भी ज आ है इसको दे खा जाय तब ए.सी.जी.एम. साहब एवं पेशकार आकर नीचे आँ गन म आकर दे खा और इसके बाद क डी वारं ट बनाने का आदे श दे रहा था उसी व वकील ने ा थ के से डॉ र ारा िदये गये पुजा को दे खा तो उसम िफिजकल िफट िलखा आ था जो सरासर गलत था।
Page 12 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
महाशय, उसके बाद ए.सी.जी.एम. साहब ने ा के के डॉ र को फोन लगाया
और कहा िक आप ायालय म आकर त ण महतो अिभयु का ा िफर से
जाँ च कर लेिकन ा के से डॉ र नहीं आये और ए ुलस से दो मेिडकल ाप
को भेज िदया वह आकर त ण महतो को दे खा और चला गया। उसके बाद त ण महतो को लगभग 8:00 बजे थाना से क डी वारं ट के साथ पुिलस सरायकेला जेल ले जाकर छोड़ िदया।
अतः ीमान् से ाथना है िक अपने र से दोिषयों के िव आव क कारवाई िकया जाय।
िदनां क :- आपका िव ासी
Sd/-
(भानु मित महतो)
पित त ण महतो,
पता ीडु ं गरी,
डाक + थाना आिद पुर,
िजला सरायकेला-खरसावां ,
झारख 832109
संल :-
त ण महतो के ज की फोटो,13 ित।
ितिलिप :-
1. माननीय (चीफ ज स ऑफ इं िडया) मु ायधीश, सवो ायाल, ितलक माग,
नई िद ी 110201
2. अ महोदय, रा ीय मानव अिधकार आयोग, मानवािधकार भवन, ॉक सी.,
जी.पी.ओ. कॉ लै , आई.एन.ए. नई िद ी 110023
3. माननीय रा पाल, झारख , रा भवन, सूचना भवन चौथी मंिजल,
राँ ची-834008
√ 4. माननीय मु ायाधीश, झारख उ ायालय, राँ ची।
5. माननीय पुिलस महािनदे शक, झारख , राँ ची।
7. The English translation thereof read as under:
To, Her Excellency the President, President House, New Delhi-110004 Sub:- Regarding indiscriminate assault and badly damaging body parts and causing injury on entire body and torturing, trying to shot him in order to take his life in confinement and Page 13 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 implicating in a false case in order to conceal illegal activities and to send him prison.
Sir, I beg to say that I Bhanumati Mahto, W/o Tarun Mahto, R/o Sridungri, Post + P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella- Kharsawan, Jharkhand-832109.
Sir, my husband Tarun Mahto who was a candidate of Jharkhand Loktantrik Krantikari Morcha (JLKM) for Ichagarh Assembly Election 2024, he got 41,138 votes and at the third position. He was very active in his area of Legislative Assembly and tries to solve each problem of villagers. On 19 November, 2025 at 2:45 AM, Sanjay Mahto informed me by Mobile No. 8084231727 that my husband was taken away by the police for encounter, I should immediately go to Ichagarh Police Station.
Sir, I informed my family members and hired a car and somehow reached Ichagarh Police Station around 5:00 AM along with Minakshi Devi, Varun Mahto, Nitesh Mahto, Saroj Mahto and Tapan Mahto as the road was in dilapidated condition. When I reached the police station then found that the gate of police station was locked, no one was present there and a constable was sitting on a plastic chair at a distance of 50 meters. I called the above constable then he came at the gate and asked what is matter, I asked have you brought Tarun Mahto in the police station? Then he ran inside the police station and after sometime he came back with two police officers and asked us what is matter, I replied that I have to meet Tarun Mahto. Thereafter, they all went inside the police station and after sometime again came back at the gate and said that no one is permitted to meet Tarun Mahto. Thereafter they all went inside the police station and we remained outside the police station. Again, the police came after one hour and permitted us to go inside. I along with Minakshi Devi, Varun Mahto, Tapan Mahto, Nitesh Mahto, Saroj Mahto went inside and began to search him in the Page 14 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 lockup but no one was present in that lockup. We again asked the Officer-in-charge then he replied to see him in another lockup. We saw Tarun Mahto lying unconscious in pool of blood and without any cloth on his body in that lockup. When we called him, my husband was groaning in pain and he began to weep and said that he was very badly assaulted. He was not able to speak properly, he was only groaning in pain, he was only asking to take him away from here. He further said that the Officer-in-charge of Tiruldih PS, the Officer-in-charge of Nimdih PS and the Officer-in-charge Ichagarh PS had assaulted him in their Chamber in the night and they were threatening to encounter him. They have badly assaulted me and three more persons were present in police station and the Officers-in-charge of all the three police stations were threatening them if you disclosed about the assault with Tarun Mahto to anyone then you all will be assaulted more badly. Thereafter, Tarun Mahto began to ask for water, then the Officer-in-charge said that neither water nor any other thing will be served to him. We requested them to serve water to him then Officer-in-charge asked us not to worry, we will take care of him and go outside. We asked them why have you beaten him so badly then they asked us to go outside as he needed more treatment. Thereafter, Naresh Yadav and the Officer-in-charge talked in rude language and misbehaved with us. The constable hurled abusive language and asked us to go outside by showing a stick. Again, they pushed us outside around 6:00 AM and locked the main gate of police station. After sometimes, sound of screaming was coming from lockup help-help otherwise I would die. Thereafter they began to brutally assault my husband. I called co-villagers outside the police station. Sand mafias Vikas Pandey and Nayan Soren were already present in that police station and the Officer-in-charge was talking with them laughingly and making fun that they will teach him Page 15 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 such a lesson that he will never raise his voice anywhere against them.
Sir, on 19/11/2025, at around 9:30 in the morning, Tarun Mahato was being taken out of the lock-up of police station by a Bolero vehicle. The vehicle was without a number plate. When the vehicle reached at the gate, the villagers began to ask where they were taking Tarun Mahato. Thereafter, the police asked the crowd to move away otherwise they will crush them. If the crowd will not follow the orders, the police will open fire and file cases against all. The police asked Tarun Mahato to advise the crowd to move away otherwise they will encounter him and open fire against the crowd. Despite this, when the villagers did not move away, he moved back the vehicle and talked to someone over phone. After some time, the DSP came there and we had discussion with him. After the discussion, the DSP asked us to submit a written complaint about the incident. The villagers and I together submitted an application and asked him to take action against the Officer-in-charge. The DSP made recommendation and said that action would be taken against him. Thereafter, we inquired about where they would take Tarun Mahato. He replied that they would take him to the hospital for treatment. Then we let him go.
Sir, all the three Officers-in-charge arrived at Chandil Community Health Centre with Tarun Mahato. We carried him inside the health centre. Dr. Jaya Agarwal, who was already present there, examined him from distance and provided a pre-prepared prescription to the police. She did not give him any treatment. From there, they took him to the Civil Court, Chandil. The police were unable to take him to the court of ACGM as he was on a wheelchair and was unable to stand. Therefore, he was kept in the court premises, where police and several lawyers were present there. It was around 7:00 pm. When the lawyers made objection and requested to examine his injuries, the ACGM and the bench clerk came Page 16 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 down to the courtyard and examined him and he was passing order to issue a custody warrant. At that very moment, the lawyer looked at the prescription issued by the doctor at the health centre in which he was declared physically fit, which was completely false.
Sir, thereafter, the ACGM made a call to the doctor of the health centre and asked her to come to the court and re- examine the accused Tarun Mahto. But the doctor did not come from the health centre and she sent two medical staff by an ambulance. They examined Tarun Mahato and went away. Thereafter, the police took Tarun Mahato from the police station to the Saraikela Jail at around 8:00 pm with a custody warrant.
Therefore, I request you to kindly take necessary action against the culprits at your level.
Date: Yours faithfully
Sd/- Bhanu Mati Mahto
Enclosed: W/o Tarun Mahto,
Photo of Tarun Mahato's injuries Address: Shridungri,
13 sheets. Post + Police Station- Adityapur,
District Saraikela-Kharsawan,
Jharkhand 832109
Copy to:
1. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court, Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110201
2. Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Bhawan, Block C, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi 110023
3. Hon'ble the Governor of Jharkhand, Rajbhawan, Suchna Bhawan, 4th Floor, Ranchi-834008
4. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. Hon'ble the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.Page 17 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
8. In addition to the complaint, the photographs appended with the petition clearly indicate that the injuries on the person of the husband of the petitioner would only be inflicted if the person is in custody.
9. What further fortifies our opinion regarding custodial beating and torture are the letters addressed by the petitioner to different authorities like, Officer-in-Charge, Ichagarh Police Station. Officer-in-Charge Adityapur Police Station, Superintendent of Police, Seraikela-
Kharsawan, Senior Superintendent of Police Seraikela-Kharsawan, Deputy Commissioner Seraikella-Kharsawan, DIG, DGP, Secretary Home all dated 20.11.2025 and Chairman, Jharkhand Human Rights Commission and Chairman, National Human Rights Commission dated 22.11.2025. The contents whereof are same and read as under:-
सेवा म, िदनां क: 20/11/2025
पुिलस अधी क महोदय,
सरायकेला-खरसावां ।
िवषयः -िनद ष त ण महतो (पूव ाशी, इं चागढ़ िवधानसभा, JLKM) को इं चागढ़
थाना भारी िव म आिद पां डे, ित लडीह थाना भारी अिवनाश कुमार साही एवं
बालू मािफया के साथ िमलकर इं चागढ़ थाना म बेरहमी से मारपीट करने के स म,
महाशय,
उपरो िवषय के स म िनवेदन पूवक कहना है िक म भानुमित महतो, पित- त ण
महतो, ाम- सीढ़ीडूंगरी, पो थाना-आिद पुर, िजला सरायकेला खरसावां, झारख
832109 के िनवासी ँ । मेरे पित त ण महतो जो इं चागढ़ िवधानसभा चुनाव 2024 म झारख लोकता क कारी मोचा (JLKM) के पूव ाशी थे, कुल 41,138 वोट लाकर तीसरे थान पर थे और अपने िवधानसभा म काफी सि य रहते ए ामीणों की ेक सम ाओं का समाधान करने का यास करते ह।
िवतीय रात िदनां क - 18/11/2025 को इं चागढ़ थाना अंतगत डु मटां ड मोड़ के पास दो पुिलसकम िसिवल डे स म खड़े होकर भारी वाहन (बालू लदे हायवा) से अवैध वसूली कर रहे थे िजसकी सूचना मेरे पित त ण महतो को ामीणों के ारा िमला। इस िशकायत के आलोक म जैसे ही घटना थल पर मेरे पित प ं चे तो इं चागढ़ थाना भारी Page 18 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 िव म आिद पां डे एवं ित लडीह थाना भारी अिवनाश कुमार साही के मौजूदगी म ामीणों ारा लगभग 40 से 45 over load बालू लदे हायवा वाहन रोककर रखे थे उतने म बालू मािफया प ं चा और बालू मािफया िवकास पां डे और नयन सोरे न ारा इं चागढ़ थाना के मुनसी नरे श यादव और चौकीदार सनातन माहली के ऊपर हमला िकया और मेरे पित का ािपयो JH22AM6111 एवं बोलेरो JH22DF7782 को बालू मािफया एवं थाना के पुिलस अिधकारी ारा िमलकर गाड़ी को तोड़ फोड़ कर कैनल म िगरा िदया गया िजससे दोनों गाड़ी ित आ, पुिलस अिधकारी ारा हवाई फाय रं ग करते ए बालू लदे हायवा को संर ण दे कर पार िकया गया एवं इं चागढ़ थाना भारी ारा मेरे पित को थाना उठाकर ले जाया गया उसके बाद िजतने भी बालू मािफया थे उनको थाना अंदर बुलाया और िहरासत म शारी रक दू र वहार िकया, स रया, लाठी-डं डा, बे , हाथ-पैर से िपटा और ह ा करने का भी यास िकया गया था। थाना अंदर म मेरे पित त ण महतो को इं चागढ़ थाना भारी िव म आिद पां डे, ित डीह थाना भारी अिवनाश कुमार साही एवं बालू मािफयाओं ने िमलकर कपड़े उतारकर बेरहमी से थड िड ी टॉचर करते ए िपटकर ल लुहान कर िदया गया और गले म पहने सोने का चैन को छीन िलया गया।
आपको जानकारी के िलए बता दू ँ िक इस मामले को लेकर बालू मािफया िवकास पां डे और नयन सोरे न को पुिलस ारा रात भर िडटे न करके थाना म रखा गया और सुबह होते ही दोनों बालू मािफयाओं को छोड़ िदया गया।
उ घटना की जानकारी मेरे पित त ण महतो ने कोट प रसर के नीचे बताया जहाँ पर उ लेटा िदया गया था, ूंिक ACJM का कोट एक त ा म होने के कारण चढ़ने म असमथ था, अ िधक तिबयत खराब लग रहा था, पैर, कमर, जाँ ध, पीछे , दोनों हाथ पैर, िसर पर काफी चोट और सूजन था, मरने के जैसा हालत था। अतः आपसे िवनम िनवेदन है िक उपरो िवषय पर उ रीय आँ च पड़ताल कर सभी अपरािधयों के खलाफ ह ा का यास, िहरासत म यातना, गंभीर प से मार- पीठ करने वाले पदािधकारी एवं बालू मािफयाओं पर कानूनी कारवाई करने की कृपा कर, तािक मेरे पित को ाय िमले।
संल ः लगी चोट की फोटो ाफी।
आपका िव ासी 20.11.2025 Sd/-
भानुमित महतो मो०-7856942223 Dated : 20.11.2025 To, Page 19 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 The Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan Subject: Regarding the brutal assault of Tarun Mahto (a candidate of JLKM for Inchagarh Legislative Assembly) in Inchagarh police-station by Vikram Aditya Pandey, Officer-In- charge, Inchagarh police-station, Avinash Kumar Sahi, Officer- In-charge, Tiruldih police-station and sand Mafias.
Sir, With respect to above subject, I, Bhanumati Mahto, W/o Tarun Mahto, R/o Village-Sidhidungri, P.O. + P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand-832109, have to say that my husband Tarun Mahto, who was a candidate of Jharkhand Loktantrik Morcha (JLKM) for Inchagarh Legislative Assembly Election 2024 and was at third place by getting a total of 41,138 votes, is very active in his constituency and tries to solve every problems of the villagers.
On the night of 18.11.2025, two policemen in civil dress were standing near Dumtanr Mor under Inchagarh police- station and extorting money from heavy vehicles (sand laden Hyva). The villagers informed my husband about it. In view of this complaint, my husband went to the place of occurrence, where the villagers had stopped about 40 to 45 number of over loaded sand laden Hyva vehicles in the presence of Vikram Aditya Pandey, Officer-In-charge, Inchagarh police-station and Avinash Kumar Sahi, Officer-In-charge, Tiruldih police-station.
Meanwhile, sand Mafia Vikas Pandey and Nayan Soren came there and attacked Munshi Naresh Yadav and Chowkidar Sanatan Mahli of Inchagarh police-station. Sand Mafia and the police-officers of the police-station vandalized Scorpio (JH22AM6111) and Bolero (JH22DF7782) vehicles of my husband and pushed them into the canal, due to which both vehicles were damaged. The police officer fired in the air to help the sand laden Hyva vehicles to leave the place under their protection. The Officer In-charge of Inchagarh police-station took my husband to the police-station. After this, all the sand Mafia were called inside the police and they physically assaulted my husband with iron-rod, sticks, belt, hands and feet, and even tried to kill him in the custody. In the police-station, Vikram Aditya Pandey, Officer In-charge, Inchagarh police-station, Avinash Kumar Sahi, Officer-In-charge, Tiruldih police-station and sand Mafia removed the clothes of my husband Tarun Mahto and brutally assaulted him by giving him third-degree torture, as a result of which he was badly injured. They also snatched the gold chain from his neck.
It is to inform you that the police had detained the sand Mafia Vikas Pandey and Nayan Soren in the police-station in the night and released both of them in the morning.
My husband Tarun Mahto informed me about the incident in the ground floor of the court premises, where he was laid down, because he was unable to climb up to the first floor where the court of ACJM situated. He was looking extremely ill.
Page 20 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025He had severe injuries and swelling on his legs, waist, thighs, back, both arms and legs, and head. He was in a dying state.
Therefore, I humbly request you to conduct a high-level investigation into this matter and take legal action against all the officers and the sand Mafias for attempt to murder and torture in custody, so that my husband gets the justice.
Yours faithfully, Enclosure: Photographs of the injuries. Sd/- 20.11.2025 Bhanu Mati Mahto Mob.7856942223
10. "Nothing is more cowardly and unconscionable than a person in police custody being beaten up and nothing inflicts a deeper wound on our constitutional culture than a State official running berserk regardless of human rights". This was so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev etc. versus State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 625).
11. Dr. Martin Luther King had observed that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" and these golden words were thereafter reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev's case (supra).
12. Justice R.K. Abichandani in his Article relating to custodial violence while referring to 'Custody' had observed as under:-
"Custody The very idea of a human being in custody save for protection and nurturing is an anathema to human existence. The word custody implies guardianship and protective care. Even when applied to indicate arrest or incarceration, it does not carry any sinister symptoms of violence during custody. No civilized law postulates custodial cruelty -an inhuman trait that springs out of a perverse desire to cause suffering when there is no possibility of any retaliation; a senseless exhibition of Page 21 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 superiority and physical power over the one who is overpowered or a collective wrath of hypocritic thinking."
13. In the same Article, he has referred to 'The Universal and Constitutional Concern' which reads thus:-
"The Universal Concern (1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly Resolution 217A(III) of 10th December, 1948 declared in the preamble that recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Article 1 proclaimed that all human beings are born free and equal, in dignity and rights. In Article 3 it proclaimed that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, and in Article 5 that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The presumption of innocence of a person charged with a penal offence until proved guilty as contained in Article 11(a) is meant to insulate him against any high-handed treatment by the authorities dealing with him in the matter. (2) Article 7 of the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights, 1966 adopted by the General Assembly resolution dated 16th December, 1966 covenanted that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Under Article 10 of the said Covenant all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and the accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons. The minimum guarantees to which everyone charged with a criminal offence, is entitled in full equality covenanted in Art. 14(3), inter-alia, provide that no shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt, which obviously will rule out use of force of any kind on a person accused of any crime.Page 22 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
(3) The American Convention of Human Rights 1969 which came into force in July, 1978, declares under Article 4(1) that every person has the right to have his life respected and this right shall be protected by law. Under Article 5, the right of every person to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected is recognized and it is covenanted between the States who are parties to this convention that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment and that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Right to human treatment recognized by Article 5 cannot be suspended even in time of war, public danger, or other emergency situation, as declared in Article 27 of this Convention. VI. The Constitutional Concern Respect for human dignity is thus not a matter for any deep study in axiology for an estimate of comparative values in ethical, social or an aesthetic problem but a matter of acknowledging a simple truth already recognized by our national document when its opening chant exudes the cultural nobility of a fraternity that assures the dignity of the individual. The Constitution recognizes it to be fundamental in the governance of the country that the State shall direct its policy to secure conditions of freedom and dignity and insulates against all forms of tyranny against mind and body and their freedom to grow fearlessly. All custodial safeguards in the constitutional and other laws are meant to protect human dignity and shun barbaric approaches. This is why no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself [Art.20(3), a person is entitled to know why he is arrested for being detained in custody and to consult a legal practitioner of his choice [Art. 22(1), there is prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (Art.
23), and, above all, that mother of all rights, the right to protection of life and personal liberty (Art. 21). The right to live with human dignity enshrined in Art. 21 derives its life and breath from the directive principles of State policy Page 23 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 as held by the Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha case. [see (1984)3 SCC 161 & (1991) 4 SCC 417]."
14. Every illegal detention irrespective of its duration, and every custodial violence irrespective of its degree and magnitude, is outright condemnable and per se actionable.
15. In prem Chand ( Paniwala) v. Union of India and others (1981) 1 SCC 639, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue as to who will police the police, it made the following pertinent observations:-
"Who will police the police? Is freedom of move-ment unreasonably fettered if policemen are given power of externment for public peace? These twin problems of disturbing import, thrown up by this bizarre case, deserve serious examination. The former is as important as the latter, especially when we view it in the strange police setting painted by the petitioner. The constitutional question, which we will state presently and discuss briefly, has become largely otiose so far as the present petitioner is concerned because counsel for the State has assured the court that they will drop police surveillance or any action by way of externment as proposed earlier. The police methodology, with sinister potential to human liberty described by the petitioner, if true, deserves strong disapproval and constitutional counteraction by this Court. But before committing ourselves to any course, we must set out the factual matrix from which the present case springs.
5. Certain facts emerge as fairly probable from the affidavits of both sides. Prem Chand made a living as a paniwala or vendor of soft drinks near Delite Cinema even as a teenager, which shows that he had very poor beginnings. How did he fall into the thraldom of the local police? He explains it in his affidavit:Page 24 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
He had a few mobile carts which were used for refrigerating water. These carts used to be parked by the petitioner on the roadside due to the idulgence of the police. He was in his teens when he started his avocation and continued for a very long time. Thus, he acquired an alias i.e. Prem Chand Paniwala. Due to close association with police and their connivance and indulgence, the petitioner thrived. In this process, the petitioner became a prey and pawn in the hands of the police. He was persuaded to be their perpetual stooge and stock witness. The petitioner in the year 1965, when he was 25 years old was involved in a gambling case by the police to mould him a permanent stock witness and lest he should be militant to defy them. Despite his hesitation and unwillingness he was forced to become a permanent pawn of the police. This is how, the petitioner landed himself in the web of the police; he had no alternative than to be like that as his livelihood was dependent upon the mercy and indulgence of the police.
The version of the petitioner is that once he yielded to the pressure of the police to give false testimony disclosing a rubberised conscience and un-veracious readiness to forswear himself, there was escalation of demands upon him and he became a regular pedlar of perjury 'on police service'. Indeed, counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was a 'stock witness' because he had to keep the police in good humour and obliged them with tailored testimony in around 3,000 cases because the alternative was police wrath. We were flabbergasted at this bizarre confession but to lend credence to his assertion counsel produced a few hundred summonses where the petitioner was cited as a witness. Were he not omnipresent how could he testify in so many cases save by a versatile genius for loyal unveracity? For sure, the consternation of the community at this flood of perjury will shake its faith in the veracity of Police investigation and the validity of the judicial verdict. We have no doubt that the petitioner, who has given particulars of a Page 25 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 large number of cases where he had been cited as witness, is speaking the truth even assuming that 3,000 cases may be an exaggeration. In Justice, Justices and Justicing and likewise in the Police and Policing, the peril to the judicial process is best left to imagination if professional perjurers like the self- confessed Paniwala are kept captive by the police, to be pressed into service for proving 'cases'. Courts, trusting the police may act on apparently veracious testimony and sentence people into prison. The com-munity, satisfied with such convictions, may well believe that all is well with law and order. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the systematic pollution of the judicial process and the consequent threat to human rights of innocent persons. We hope that the higher authorities in the Department who, apparently, are not aware of the nefarious goings-on at the lesser levels will immediately take measures to stamp out this unscrupulous menace.
10.Having made these observations, we leave the question of vires open for final investigation, if necessary, in other cases pending before this Court. We think counsel for the State was right in representing that no further action would be taken against the petitioner. We dispose of the petition as calling no longer for directions but emphasise the need of the State to issue clear orders to the Police Department to free the processes of investigation and prosecution from the contamination of concoction through the expediency of stockpiling of stock witnesses. To police persons who get rich quick by methods not easily or licitly understandable, is perhaps a social service.
Among the list of wanted persons must be not only the poor suspects but the dubious rich. To keep an eye on their activities, without close shadowing and surveillance may, perhaps, lead to criminal discoveries, if they are not too influential for the police. By this judgment what we mean is not to tell the police to fold up their hands and remain inactive when anti-social elements suddenly grow in wealth, but to be activist and intelligent Page 26 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 enough to track down those who hold the nation's health, wealth, peace and security in jeopardy. The only insistence is that the means must also be as good as the ends."
16. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expressed its concern as to how to safeguard the dignity of the individual and balance the same with the interest of the State or Investigative Agency. Therein, the Court, dealt with the issue custodial violence and clearly rule, interrogation though essential must be on scientific principles, third degree method are impermissible, balance approach should be there so that criminals do not go scot-free.
Various guidelines were also issued which are still holding the field. The relevant observations as contained in para 9,10,11, 12,22,28, 29,31, 33 read as under;-
"9. The importance of affirmed rights of every human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law-enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of Page 27 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issues are fundamental.
10. "Torture" has not been defined in the Constitution or in other penal laws. "Torture" of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the "strong" over the "weak" by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilisation.
"Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself."
11. No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many Conventions and Declarations as "torture"
-- all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread now than ever before. "Custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward -- flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast.
12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law.
22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the Page 28 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law-breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights' jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "No". The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.
28. Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third-degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.
29. How do we check the abuse of police power? Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two possible safeguards which this Court must insist upon. Attention is also required to be paid to properly develop work culture, training and orientation of the police force consistent with basic human values. Training methodology of the police needs restructuring.
Page 29 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025The force needs to be infused with basic human values and made sensitive to the constitutional ethos. Efforts must be made to change the attitude and approach of the police personnel handling investigations so that they do not sacrifice basic human values during interrogation and do not resort to questionable forms of interrogation. With a view to bring in transparency, the presence of the counsel of the arrestee at some point of time during the interrogation may deter the police from using third- degree methods during interrogation.
31. There is one other aspect also which needs our consideration. We are conscious of the fact that the police in India have to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, communal riots, political turmoil, student unrest, terrorist activities, and among others the increasing number of underworld and armed gangs and criminals. Many hardcore criminals like extremists, terrorists, drug peddlers, smugglers who have organised gangs, have taken strong roots in the society. It is being said in certain quarters that with more and more liberalisation and enforcement of fundamental rights, it would lead to difficulties in the detection of crimes committed by such categories of hardened criminals by soft peddling interrogation. It is felt in those quarters that if we lay too much of emphasis on protection of their fundamental rights and human rights, such criminals may go scot-free without exposing any element or iota of criminality with the result, the crime would go unpunished and in the ultimate analysis the society would suffer. The concern is genuine and the problem is real. To deal with such a situation, a balanced approach is needed to meet the ends of justice. This is all the more so, in view of the expectation of the society that police must deal with the criminals in an efficient and effective manner and bring to book those who are involved in the crime. The cure cannot, however, be worst than the disease itself.
Page 30 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 202533. There can be no gainsaying that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State. The right of preventive detention of individuals in the interest of security of the State in various situations prescribed under different statutes has been upheld by the courts. The right to interrogate the detenus, culprits or arrestees in the interest of the nation, must take precedence over an individual's right to personal liberty. The Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae suprema lex (safety of the State is the supreme law) coexist and are not only important and relevant but lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The action of the State, however, must be "right, just and fair". Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be "right nor just nor fair" and, therefore, would be impermissible, being offensive to Article 21. Such a crime-suspect must be interrogated -- indeed subjected to sustained and scientific interrogation -- determined in accordance with the provisions of law. He cannot, however, be tortured or subjected to third- degree methods or eliminated with a view to elicit information, extract confession or derive knowledge about his accomplices, weapons etc. His constitutional right cannot be abridged in the manner permitted by law, though in the very nature of things there would be qualitative difference in the method of interrogation of such a person as compared to an ordinary criminal. Challenge of terrorism must be met with innovative ideas and approach. State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism. State terrorism would only provide legitimacy to "terrorism". That would be bad for the State, the community and above all for the rule of law. The State must, therefore, ensure that various agencies deployed by it for combating terrorism act within the bounds of law and not become law unto themselves. That the terrorist has violated human rights of innocent citizens may render him liable to punishment but it cannot justify the Page 31 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 violation of his human rights except in the manner permitted by law. Need, therefore, is to develop scientific methods of investigation and train the investigators properly to interrogate to meet the challenge."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter issued following requirements to be followed to all cases arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in this behalf as preventive measures in para 35 of judgment D.K. Basu ( supra) which reads as under:-
35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:
(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the Page 32 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo"
must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the Page 33 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.
18. In Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (SMT) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another (2003) 7 SCC 749 the Hon'ble Supreme Court took cognizance of alarming increase in case of torture assault and death in police custody and non availability of direct evidence in such cases and held that custodial torture violates the basic rights of citizen and all the Courts were therefore advised to deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity they deserve.
19. In Munshi Singh Gautam (Dead) and others v. State of M.P.(2005) 9SCC 631 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized on the approach to be taken in case of police atrocities/ custodial violence or death where there is lack of direct ocular evidence due to complicity of police personnel and held that exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt in such cases often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system suspect and vulnerable.
20. In Prithipal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2012 (1) SCC 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was overwhelming necessity to curb the menace of police atrocities, custodial death and illegal detention and emphasized that there should be accountability of wrongdoer and responsibility of the State in case a person in police custody is deprived of his life except in accordance with procedure established by law. It was held that police atrocities are always violative of constitutional mandate. Tolerance of police atrocities would amount to acceptance of systematic subversion and Page 34 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 erosion of rule of law. It shall be apt to reproduce para 25 to 34 and 86 which read as under:
"25. Police atrocities in India had always been a subject-matter of controversy and debate. In view of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is inhibited. Torture is not permissible whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if a person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except in accordance with the procedure established by law. However, when the matter comes to the court, it has to balance the protection of fundamental rights of an individual and duties of the police. It cannot be gainsaid that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State. The Latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex--the safety of the people is the supreme law; and salus reipublicae suprema lex--the safety of the State is the supreme law, coexist. However, the doctrine of the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.
26. The right to life has rightly been characterised as "'supreme' and 'basic'; it includes both so-called negative and positive obligations for the State". The negative obligation means the overall prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life. In this context, positive obligation requires that the State has an overriding obligation to protect the right to life of every person within its territorial jurisdiction. The obligation requires the State to take administrative and all other measures in order to protect life and investigate all suspicious deaths.
27. The State must protect the victims of torture, ill-treatment as well as the human rights defender fighting for the interest of the victims, giving the issue serious consideration for the reason that victims of torture suffer enormous consequences psychologically. The problems of acute stress as well as a post-traumatic stress disorder and many other psychological consequences must be Page 35 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 understood in the correct perspective. Therefore, the State must ensure prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to any person, particularly at the hands of any State agency/police force.
28. In addition to the protection provided under the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, also provides for protection of all rights to every individual. It inhibits illegal detention. Torture and custodial death have always been condemned by the courts in this country. In its 113th Report, the Law Commission of India recommended the amendment to the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called "the Evidence Act"), to provide that in case of custodial injuries, if there is evidence, the court may presume that injury was caused by the police having the custody of that person during that period. Onus to prove the contrary is on the police authorities. Law requires for adoption of a realistic approach rather than narrow technical approach in cases of custodial crimes. (Vide Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B.
29. This Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana while dealing with torture in police custody observed : (SCC pp. 71-72, para 2) "2. We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights to death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic, torturesome poignancy [when] the violent violation is perpetrated by the police arm of the State whose function is to protect the citizen and not to commit gruesome offences against them as has happened in this case. Police lock-up if reports in newspapers have a streak of credence, are becoming more and more awesome cells. This development is disastrous to our human rights awareness and humanist constitutional order."
30. Similarly, in Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P. this Court held : (SCC pp. 666-67, paras 15 & 17) Page 36 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 "15. ...it is generally difficult in cases of deaths in police custody to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for resorting to third-degree methods since they are in charge of police station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate as in this case.
17. ... The offence is of a serious nature aggravated by the fact that it was committed by a person who is supposed to protect the citizens and not misuse his uniform and authority to brutally assault them while in his custody. Death in police custody must be seriously viewed for otherwise we will help take a stride in the direction of police raj. It must be curbed with a heavy hand. The punishment should be such as would deter others from indulging in such behaviour. There can be no room for leniency."
31. In Munshi Singh Gautam this Court held that peculiar type of cases must be looked at from a prism different from that used for ordinary criminal cases for the reason that in a case where the person is alleged to have died in police custody, it is difficult to get any kind of evidence. The Court observed as under : (SCC pp. 638-39, paras 6-7) "6. Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence is available of the complicity of the police personnel, who alone can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues....
7. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities, the fact situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case ... often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice-delivery system suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis society Page 37 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 suffers and a criminal gets encouraged ... The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in 'khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become a law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence eating the crop, the foundations of the criminal justice-delivery system would be shaken and civilisation itself would risk the consequence of heading towards total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually lose faith in the efficacy of the system of the judiciary itself, which if it happens, will be a sad day, for anyone to reckon with."
32. In State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim the State of U.P. filed an appeal before this Court for expunging the following remarks made by the Allahabad High Court : (AIR p. 705, para 2) "2. ... '...that there is not a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose record of crime comes anywhere near the record of that organised unit which is known as the Indian police force.
... Where every fish barring perhaps a few, stinks, it is idle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks.'"
This Court held that such general remarks could not be justified nor were they necessary for disposal of the said case. The Court expunged the aforesaid adverse remarks. (See also People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India .Page 38 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
33. Undoubtedly, this Court has been entertaining petition after petition involving the allegations of fake encounters and rapes by police personnel of States and in a large number of cases transferred the investigation itself to other agencies and particularly CBI. (See Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat .
34. Thus, in view of the above, in the absence of any research/data/material, a general/sweeping remark that a "substantial majority of the population in the country considered the police force as an institution which violates human rights"
cannot be accepted. However, in a given case if there is some material on record to reveal the police atrocities, the court must take stern action against the erring police officials in accordance with law.
86. Police atrocities are always violative of the constitutional mandate, particularly, Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (person arrested must be informed the grounds of detention and produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours). Such provisions ensure that arbitrary arrest and detention are not made. Tolerance of police atrocities, as in the instant case, would amount to acceptance of systematic subversion and erosion of the rule of law. Therefore, illegal regime has to be glossed over with impunity, considering such cases of grave magnitude."
21. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the mandate of registration of FIR and laid down the mandatory principles:-
120) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.Page 39 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
120.2) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound Page 40 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
22. In Gyanesh Rai and another versus State of UP and Ors 2015 (6) All LJ 499 the learned Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made extremely lucid enunciation of law on the subject and I can do no better than to extract some of the observations made therein which read as follow:-
"8. Mahatma Gandhi in one of his quotes has said as follows: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent."
9. By resorting to custodial torture, for the time being, police with a view to secure evidence or confession may achieve their goal but in long run, police will have to substantiate and will have to face the scrutiny of Court, as to whether evidence secured or confession made was voluntary or same has been sheer outcome of custodial violence inflicted upon. Evidences and Confessions that come through the route of custodial violence, in long run, do no good and prosecution has to pay heavy price for the same, on such facts being substantiated, otherwise police would be accomplishing behind their closed doors precisely what the demands of our legal order forbid.
10. Time and again custodial torture has been at the radar of the Apex Court and Apex Court, at all point of time, has viewed custodial torture with all seriousness. Apex Court in the case of Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 1980 (3) SCC 70 proceeded to mention that State at the highest administrative and political levels would organize special strategies to prevent and punish Page 41 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 brutality by police methodology, otherwise, the credibility of the rule of law in our Republic vis-a-vis the people of the country will deteriorate. Relevant extract of said judgement is as follows:
"We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scarce in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights to death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic, torture some poignancy when violent violation is perpetrated by the police arm of the State whose function is to protect the citizen and not to commit gruesome offences against them as has happened in this case, Police lock-up if reports in newspapers have a streak of credence, are becoming more and more awesome cells. This development is disastrous to our human rights awareness and humanist constitutional order.
The State, at the highest administrative and political levels, we hope, will organise special strategies to prevent and punish brutality by police methodology. Otherwise, the credibility of the rule of law in our Republic vis-a-vis the people of the country will deteriorate.
We conclude with the disconcerting note sounded by Abraham Lincoln:
'If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.' These observations have become necessary to impress upon' the State police echelons the urgency of stamping out the vice of 'third degree' from the investigative armoury of the police."
11. Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Sagar Yadav and others 1985 (1) SCC 552 has proceeded to took a note of the fact that at the point of time when a person is in custody and he is subjected to any atrocity, then, at the said point of time, police officials alone and none else, can give evidence as regards the circumstances in which a person in their custody Page 42 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 comes to receive injuries while in their custody. Relevant extract of said judgement is as follows:
"Police Officers alone, and none else, can give evidence as regards the circumstances in which a person in their custody comes to receive injuries while in their custody. Bound by ties of a kind of brotherhood, they often prefer to remain silent in such situations and when they choose to speak, they put their own gloss upon facts and pervert the truth. The result is that persons, on whom atrocities are perpetrated by the police in the sanctum sanctorum of the police station, are left without any evidence to prove who the offenders are."
12. Apex Court, in the case of Nilabati Behera @ Lalit Behera vs. State of Orissa and others, 1993 (2) SCC 746 proceeded to take view that even convicts, prisoners and undertrials have right under Article 21 and once an incumbent is taken into custody and there are injuries on his body, then State will have to explain, as to how he sustained the injuries, and compensation can be awarded under public law remedy.
13. Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416, has dealt with the issue of custodial violence, and has clearly ruled, interrogation through essential must be on scientific principles, third degree methods are impermissible, balanced approach should be there so that criminals don't go scot free. Various guidelines have been issued and same are holding the field, even as on date, in addition to constitutional and statutory safeguards. Relevant extract of said judgment is as follows:
"The importance of affirmed rights of every human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is Page 43 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issues are fundamental.
14. "Torture" has not been defined in Constitution or in other penal laws. 'Torture' of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the 'strong' over the 'weak' by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous wit the darker side of human civilisation.
"Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is not way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself."
-Adriana P. Bartow No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many Conventions and Declarations as 'torture'- all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but inspite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread not that ever before, "Custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation with destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality.
15. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backwardflag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast.
16. In all custodial crimes that is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up.
Page 44 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma a person experiences is beyond the purview of law.
"Custodial violence" and abuse of police power is not only peculiar to this country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1984, which market the emergency of worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights, stipulates in Article 5 that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Despite the pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilised nation shows its concern and takes steps for its eradication."
17. Fundamental rights occupy a place of pride in the India Constitution. Article 21 provides "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty expect according to procedure established by law". Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution. The expression "life of personal liberty" has been held to include the right to live with human dignity and thus it would also include within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries. Article 22 guarantees protection against arrest and detention in certain cases and declares that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest and the shall not be denied the right to consult and defend himself by a legal practitioner of his choice. Clause (2) of Article 22 directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate. Article 20(3) of the Constitution lays down that a person accused of an offence shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. These are some of the constitutional safeguard provided to a person with a view to protect his personal liberty against and unjustified assault by the State, In tune with the constitutional guarantee a number statutory provisions also seek Page 45 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 to project personal liberty, dignity and basic human rights of the citizens. Chapter V. of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with the powers of arrest of a person and the safeguard which are required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the arrested person. Section 41, Cr. P.C. confers powers on any police officer to arrest a person under the circumstances specified therein without any order or a warrant of arrest from a Magistrate. Section 46 provides the method and manner of arrest. Under this Section no formality is necessary while arresting a person. Under Section 49, the police is not permitted to use more restraint than is necessary to permitted to use more restraint than is necessary to prevent the escape of the person. Section 50 enjoins every police officer arresting any person without warrant to communicate to him the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested and the grounds for such arrest. The police officer is further enjoined to inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and he may arrange for sureties in the event of his arrest for a non-bailable offence. Section 56 contains a mandatory provision requiring the police officer making an arrest without warrant to produce the arrested person before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay and Section 57 echoes Clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. There are some other provisions also like Section 53, 54 and 167 which are aimed at affording procedural safeguards to a person arrested by the police. Whenever a person dies in custody of the police, Section 176 requires the Magistrate to hold and enquiry into the cause of death. 18. However, inspite of the constitutional and statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and life of a citizen, growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody has been a disturbing factor. Experience shows that worst violations of human rights take place during the course of investigation, when the police with a view to secure evidence or confession often resorts to third degree methods including torture and adopts techniques of screening arrest by either not recording the arrest or describing the deprivation of liberty merely as a prolonged interrogation. A reading of the morning newspapers Page 46 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 almost everyday carrying reports of dehumanising torture, assault, rape and death in custody of police or other governmental agencies is indeed depressing. The increasing incidence of torture and death in custody has assumed such alarming proportions that it is affecting the creditibility of the Rule of Law and the administration of criminal justice system.
19. The community rightly feels perturbed. Society's cry for justice becomes louder.
20. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution required to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal court of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'No'. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicted undertrials, detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.
21. Instances have come to out notice were the police has arrested a person without warrant in connection with the investigation of an offence, without recording the arrest, and the arrest person has been subjected to torture to extract information from him for the purpose of further investigation or for recovery of case property or for extracting confession etc. The torture and injury caused on the body of the arrestee has sometime resulted Page 47 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 into his death. Death in custody is not generally shown in the records of the lock-up and every effort is made by the police to dispose of the body or to make out a case that the arrested person died after he was released from custody. Any complaint against such torture or death is generally not given any attention by the police officers because of ties of brotherhood.
22. No first information report at the instance of the victim or his kith and kin is generally entertained and even the higher police officers turn a blind eye to such complaints. Even where a formal prosecution is launched by the victim or his kith and kin, no direct evidence is available to substantiate the charge of torture or causing hurt resulting into death as the police lock-up where generally torture or injury is caused is away from the public gaze and the witnesses are either police men or co- prisoners who are highly reluctant to appear as prosecution witness due to fear of retaliation by the superior officers of the police. It is often seen that when a complaint is made against torture, death or injury, in police custody, it is difficult to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are incharge of police station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate.
23. Consequently, prosecution against the delinquent officers generally results in acquittal. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors. [ 1995 (3) Scale, 343 ] is an apt case illustrative of the observations made by us above. In that case, Nathu Bnjara was tortured at police station, Rampura during the interrogation. As a result of extensive injuries caused to him he died in police custody at the police station. The defence set up by the respondent police officials at the trial was that Nathu Banjara had been released from police custody at about 10.30 p.m. after interrogation 13.10.1986 itself vide entry EX. P/22A in the Roznamcha and that at about 7.00 a.m. on 14.10.1981, a death report Ex. P/9 was recorded at the police station, Rampura, at the instance of Ramesh respondent No. 6, to the effect that he had found "one unknown person" near a tree by the side of the tank riggling with pain in his chest and that as a soon as respondent Page 48 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 No. 6 reached near him, the said person died. The further case set up by SI Trivedi, respondent No. 1, incharge of the police station was that after making a Roznamcha entry at 7.00 a.m. about his departure from the police station he (respondent No. 1- Shyamsunder Trivedi) and Constable Rajaram respondent proceeded to the spot where the dead body was stated to be lying for conducting investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He summoned Ramesh Chandra and Goverdhan respondents to the spot and in their presence prepared a panchnama EX. P/27 of the dead body recording the opinion therein to the effect that no definite cause of death was known.
24. Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of a an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with that view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means.
25. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purpose full to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using their degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.
34. Apex Court in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another 2003 (7) SCC 749 has proceeded to make a mention that who are at the helm of affairs who proclaim from rooftops to be the defenders of democracy and protectors of people's rights and do not hesitate to condescend behind the screen to let loose their men in uniform to settle personal scores, reigning ignorance of what happens and pretending to be peace-loving puritans and saviours of citizens' rights. Relevant extract of said judgement is as follows:
"If it is assuming alarming proportions, now a days, all around it is merely on account of the devilish devices adopted by those at the helm of affairs who proclaim from roof tops to be the defenders of democracy and protectors of peoples' rights and yet do not hesitate to condescend behind the screen to let Page 49 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 loose their men in uniform to settle personal scores, feigning ignorance of what happens and pretending to be peace loving puritans and saviours of citizens' rights.
Article 21 which is one of the luminary provisions in the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') and is a part of the scheme for fundamental rights occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The Article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') deals with the powers of arrest of persons and the safeguards required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the arrested person. Articles 20(3) and 22 of the Constitution further manifest the constitutional protection extended to every citizen and the guarantees held out for making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is therefore difficult to comprehend how torture and custodial violence can be permitted to defy the rights flowing from the Constitution. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in custody which have assumed alarming proportions raise serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system. The community rightly gets disturbed. The cry for justice becomes louder and warrants immediate remedial measures. This Court has in a large number of cases expressed concern at the atrocities perpetuated by the protectors of law. Justice Brandies's observation which have become classic are in following immortal words:
"Government as the omnipotent and omnipresent teacher teaches the whole people by its example, if the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites Page 50 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 every man to become a law into himself". (in (1928) 277 U.S. 438, quoted in (1961) 367 U.S. 643 at 659)."
The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted peril because guardians of law destroy the human rights by custodial violence and torture and invariably resulting in death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose paramount duty is to protect the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality perpetrate them. The concern which was shown in Raghubir Singh's case (supra) more than two decades back seems to have fallen to leaf ears and the situation does not seem to be showing any noticeable change. The anguish expressed in Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P. (AIR 1990 SC 709), Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1992 (3) SCC
249), Smt. Nilabati Behera @Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 1960), Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 100), Kewal Pati (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 600), Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995(3) SCC 702), State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (1995 (4) SCC 262) and by now celebrated decision in Shri D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (JT 1997 (1) SC 1) seems to have caused not even any softening attitude to the inhuman approach in dealing with persons in custody.
Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues - and the present case is an apt illustration - as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter."
Page 51 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 202535. Apex Court in the case of Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana and others 2006 (3) SCC 178 has taken note of custodial violence to be torture and third degree methods used by police during interrogation and has discussed in detail the reasons behind such practice and has also given preventive measures as to how such violence can be tackled. Relevant extract of said judgement is as follows:
"Unfortunately, police in the country have given room for an impression in the minds of public, that whenever there is a crime, investigation usually means rounding up all persons concerned (say all servants in the event of a theft in the employer's house, or all acquaintances of the deceased, in the event of a murder) and subjecting them to third-degree interrogation in the hope that someone will spill the beans. This impression may not be correct, but instances are not wanting where police have resorted to such a practice. Lack of training in scientific investigative methods, lack of modern equipment, lack of adequate personnel, and lack of a mindset respecting human rights, are generally the reasons for such illegal action. One other main reason is that the public (and men in power) expect results from police in too short a span of time, forgetting that methodical and scientific investigation is a time consuming and lengthy process. Police are branded as inefficient even when there is a short delay in catching the culprits in serious crimes.
The expectation of quick results in high-profile or heinous crimes builds enormous pressure on the police to somehow 'catch' the 'offender'. The need to have quick results tempts them to resort to third degree methods. They also tend to arrest "someone" in a hurry on the basis of incomplete investigation, just to ease the pressure. Time has come for an attitudinal change not only in the minds of the police, but also on the part of the public. Difficulties in criminal investigation and the time required for such investigation should be recognized, and police should be allowed to function methodically without interferences or unnecessary pressures. If police are to perform better, the Page 52 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 public should support them, government should strengthen and equip them, and men in power should not interfere or belittle them. The three wings of the Government should encourage, insist and ensure thorough scientific investigation under proper legal procedures, followed by prompt and efficient prosecution. Be that as it may.
Custodial violence requires to be tackled from two ends, that is, by taking measures that are remedial and preventive. Award of compensation is one of the remedial measures after the event. Effort should be made to remove the very causes, which lead to custodial violence, so as to prevent such occurances. Following steps, if taken, may prove to be effective preventive measures:
a) Police training should be re-oriented, to bring in a change in the mindset and attitude of the Police personnel in regard to investigations, so that they will recognize and respect human rights, and adopt thorough and scientific investigation methods.
b) The functioning of lower level Police Officers should be continuously monitored and supervised by their superiors to prevent custodial violence and adherence to lawful standard methods of investigation.
c) Compliance with the eleven requirements enumerated in D.K. Basu (supra) should be ensured in all cases of arrest and detention.
d) Simple and fool-proof procedures should be introduced for prompt registration of first information reports relating to all crimes.
e) Computerization, video-recording, and modern methods of records maintenance should be introduced to avoid manipulations, insertions, substitutions and ante-dating in regard to FIRs, Mahazars, inquest proceedings, Port-mortem Reports and Statements of witnesses etc. and to bring in transparency in action.
f) An independent investigating agency (preferably the respective Human Rights Commissions or CBI) may be entrusted with adequate power, to investigate complaints of Page 53 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 custodial violence against Police personnel and take stern and speedy action followed by prosecution, wherever necessary.
The endeavour should be to achieve a balanced level of functioning, where police respect human rights, adhere to law, and take confidence building measures (CBMs), and at the same time, firmly deal with organized crime, terrorism, whitecollared crime, deteriorating law and order situation etc."
36. Apex Court in the case of Prithipal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (1) SCC 10 has considered that the State has to protect the victim of torture and State cannot be permitted to negate such a right. Relevant extract of said judgement is as follows:
"Police atrocities in India had alwa ys been a subject matter of controversy and debate. In view of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is inhibited. Torture is not permissible whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. The wrong-doer is accountable and the State is responsible if a person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
However, when the matter comes to the court, it has to balance the protection of fundamental rights of an individual and duties of the police. It cannot be gainsaid that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State. Latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex - the safety of the people is supreme law; and salus reipublicae suprema lex - safety of the State is supreme law, 14 co-exist. However, the doctrine of the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.
The right to life has rightly been characterised as "`supreme' and `basic'; it includes both so-called negative and positive obligations for the State". The negative obligation means the overall prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life. In this context, positive obligation requires that State has an overriding obligation to protect the right to life of every person within its territorial jurisdiction. The obligation requires the State to take Page 54 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 administrative and all other measures in order to protect life and investigate all suspicious deaths.
The State must protect victims of torture, ill-treatment as well as the human rights defender fighting for the interest of the victims, giving the issue serious consideration for the reason that victims of torture suffer enormous consequences psychologically. The problems of acute stress as well as a post- traumatic stress disorder and many other psychological consequences must be understood in correct perspective. Therefore, the State must ensure prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to any person, particularly at the hands of any State agency/police force.
In addition to the protection provided under the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, also provide for protection of all rights to every individual. It inhibits illegal detention. Torture and custodial death have always been condemned by the courts in this country. In its 113th report, the Law Commission of India recommended the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called "Evidence Act"), to provide that in case of custodial injuries, if there is evidence, the court may presume that injury was caused by the police having the custody of that person during that period. Onus to prove contrary is on the police authorities. Law requires for adoption of a realistic approach rather than narrow technical approach in cases of custodial crimes."
38. Apex Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2014 (10) SCC 635 has clearly mentioned that Article 21 of Constitution of India guarantees "right to live with human dignity" and any violation of human rights is viewed seriously. Relevant extract of said judgement is as follows:
"Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees "right to live with human dignity". Any violation of human rights is viewed seriously by this Court as right to life is the most precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The guarantee by Page 55 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 Article 21 is available to every person and even the State has no authority to violate that right.
In some of the countries when a police firearms officer is involved in a shooting, there are strict guidelines and procedures in place to ensure that what has happened is thoroughly investigated. In India, unfortunately, such structured guidelines and procedures are not in place where police is involved in shooting and death of the subject occurs in such shooting. We are of the opinion that it is the constitutional duty of this Court to put in place certain guidelines adherence to which would help in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the crime who take law in their own hands.
Article 21 of the Constitution provides "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". This Court has stated time and again that Article 21 confers sacred and cherished right under the Constitution which cannot be violated, except according to procedure established by law. Article 21 guarantees personal liberty to every single person in the country which includes the right to live with human dignity.
In line with the guarantee provided by Article 21 and other provisions in the Constitution of India, a number of statutory provisions also seek to protect personal liberty, dignity and basic human rights. In spite of Constitutional and statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and life of a citizen, the cases of death in police encounters continue to occur. This Court has been confronted with encounter cases from time to time. In Chaitanya Kalbagh3, this Court was concerned with a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution wherein the impartial investigation was sought for the alleged killing of 299 persons in the police encounters. The Court observed that in the facts and circumstances presented before it, there was an imperative need of ensuring that the guardians of law and order do in fact observe the code of discipline expected of them and that they function strictly as the protectors of innocent citizens.Page 56 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
We are not oblivious of the fact that police in India has to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly, when many hardcore criminals, like, extremists, terrorists, drug peddlers, smugglers who have organized gangs, have taken strong roots in the society but then such criminals must be dealt with by the police in an efficient and effective manner so as to bring them to justice by following rule of law. We are of the view that it would be useful and effective to structure appropriate guidelines to restore faith of the people in police force. In a society governed by rule of law, it is imperative that extra- judicial killings are properly and independently investigated so that justice may be done."
23. The legal position on custodial torture was summed up by three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India and another (2020) 13 SCC 585 wherein while dealing with the issue of right to life and issue of custodial torture, it was observed as under:-
"4. The applicant predicating his case on the right to life and liberty and judgments of this Court had argued that custodial torture being crime against humanity which directly infracts and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court should invoke and exercise jurisdiction under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution for the protection and advancement of human dignity, a core and non- negotiable constitutional right. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal custodial torture and violence was described as a wound inflicted on the soul, so painful and paralysing that it engenders fear, rage, hatred and despair, and denigrates the individual. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others, this Court had observed that the prisoners have enforceable liberties, though devalued but never demonetised and, therefore, it is within the jurisdictional reach and range of this Court's writ to deal with prison and police caprice and cruelty. Similarly, in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others , this Court had observed that Page 57 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 torture in any form is inhuman, degrading and offensive to human dignity and constitutes an inroad into the right to life and is prohibited by Article 21 of the Constitution, for no law authorises and no procedure permits torture or cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment. Reference was made to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits torture in all forms in absolute terms. Recently, in K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others this Court had once again emphased on the right to human dignity which, first and foremost, means the dignity of each human being 'as a human being'. When human dignity in a person's life is infringed and physical or mental welfare is negated and harmed, the Court would intervene to protect and safeguard constitutional values. Reference was also made to the decision in Romila Thapar and Others v. Union of India and Others claiming that despite existing law and repeated judicial decisions, custodial torture still remains rampant and widespread in India. Our attention was drawn to the report of Asian Centre for Human Rights which was based, inter alia, on the information and data furnished by the Government of India in Parliament, acknowledging 1674 custodial deaths, including 1530 deaths in judicial custody and 144 deaths in police custody during the period 1st April 2017 to 28th February 2018. India has consistently and unequivocally condemned and deprecated custodial torture at international forums and has signed the UN Convention but the Government's reluctance to ratify the UN Convention, which envisages a comprehensive and standalone legislation, it was argued, is baffling and unintelligible. Indian statutory law at present is not in harmony and falls short on several accounts, both procedurally and substantively, with the UN Convention and, thus, there is an urgent and immediate need for an all-embracing standalone enactment based on the UN Convention. Articles 51(c) and 253 of the Constitution underscore the 'constitutional imperative' of aligning domestic laws with international law and obligations. The legislation as prayed, it was Page 58 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 submitted, would fulfill the constitutional obligations of the Government of India and the constitutional goals which the Government ought to achieve. Accordingly, the directions as prayed for would not entrench upon Parliament's domain to enact laws as they directly relate to the protection and preservation of human rights. The directions are justified and necessary in view of the delay and inaction in enacting the law, notwithstanding the recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission, report of the Law Commission of India in October 2017, and report of the Select Committee of Parliament dated 2 th December 2010 and repeated commitments made by the Indian Government. Reference was made to Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Others wherein this Court had highlighted the need for enactment of a suitable legislation to deal with mob violence/lynching in the country. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh , Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal , K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat. While referring to Mahender Chawla v. Union of India , and other decisions including Tehseen S. Poonawalla (supra), it was argued that this Court has not flinched from suggesting, recommending, advising, guiding and directing the Government of India with respect to statutory enactments. It was submitted that the delay and inaction in implementing the constitutional obligation relates back to the year 1997 when India had signed the UN Convention, but the Government has failed to enact a comprehensive legislation despite commitments and recommendations made and noticed above. This, it was submitted, reflects unreasonable and unacceptable conduct of the Government in shielding infringement of Article 21 and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Court may issue directions to the Page 59 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 Union of India to enact a law dealing with custodial torture in terms of the U.N. Convention."
24. Thus what can be taken to be settled is that, no doubt the police is under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means.
25. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.
26. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the husband of the petitioner appears to have been mercilessly beaten up in police custody and what still worst is that he has not even taken to the hospital by the police. If this was not enough, the police even managed to get a certificate from a doctor, Community Health Centre, Chandil , District-
Seraikella-Kharsawan dated 19.11.2025 that is the date of the incident which describe the injuries only as "bruising seen over arms, back, buttock, legs and face", and to compound and make matters worse it has been observed that the husband of the petitioner is clinically, medically fit for custody and same has been signed by some medical officer, Sub Divisional Hospital, Chandil, Seraikella-Kharsawan. This certificate in the teeth of the observation made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil before whom the husband of the petitioner was Page 60 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 produced with a prayer to remand him along with other accused persons into the judicial custody for a fortnight. When the husband of the petitioner was produced, the magistrate noticed that "there is injury mark on his back and two hands, cut injury on his left ear, injury below the left eye and fracture of both legs". It is in this background that the officer-in-Charge of Ichagarh Police Station was directed by him to submit an explanation regarding the injuries of the aforesaid four accused persons within seven days. The order read as under:
"19.11.2025: I.O. of this case has forwarded the accused persons namely 1. Tarun Mahato Aged About 38 Year S/o- Sadanand Mahato R/o- Shridungri, P.S.- Adityapur, District-Seraikella-- Kharsawan, 2. Ramkrishna Mahato Aged About 34 Year S/o Sharat Chandra Mahto, R/o- Manikui, P.S.-Chandil, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan, 3. Dharnidhar Mahato Aged About 35 Year S/o--Late Jaldhar Mahato, R/o- Bansa P.S.- Chowka, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, 4. Sudhanshu Mahato Aged About 30 Year S/o Harekrishna, R/o- Diyadih, P.S.- Ichagarh, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, alongwith forwarding cum memo of arrest, Medical prescription, with test report with a prayer to remand the accused persons and take him into Judicial Custody for a fortnight in which F.F. is likely to be submitted. Accused persons produce before me under proper escort party. Accused persons named above have sustained injury which are mentioned below:
1. Tarun Mahato... there is injury mark on his back and two hands, cut and injury on his left ear, injury below the left eye and fracture on both legs.
2.Ramkrishna Mahato.... Swelling on his right leg.
3.Dharnidhar Mahato... there is injury mark on his left leg.
4.Sudhanshu Mahato... there is cut and injury mark on his left leg.Page 61 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
On careful perusal of Arrest Memo makes it clear that accused person has been arrested and produced before the court within 24 hours of his arrest as stipulated U/S 58 of B.N.S. Further, relatives of accused have been informed about the arrest.
Officer-in-Charge of Ichagarh P.S. is directed to submit an explanation regarding injuries of the aforesaid four accused persons within 7 days.
Accused persons have ben informed regarding legal aid provided by D.L.S.A but they stated that they will engage their own lawyer. The offence under sections 189(2), 191(3), 221, 121(1), 121(2), 132, 109 B.N.S. are leveled against the accused persons which is Cognizable non-Bailable in nature. Hence accused persons named above are taken into judicial custody and remanded to Seraikella Jail Till 02.12.2025. Jail authority is strictly directed to provide appropriate medical facility to all above accused persons.
O/c to issue C/W Sd/-
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate"
27. Clearly, from the injuries noticed by the magistrate, we have no hesitation to conclude that it was the police which managed the medical certificate but that does not exonerate the medical officer issuing the medical certificate clinically medically fit for custody. Therefore, the Director, Health Services, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand hold an inquiry against the erring medical officer, Sub Divisional Hospital, Chandil, Seraikella-
Kharsawan as to on what basis he issued the medical certificate quo the husband of the petitioner showing therein the injuries as setout above without making a mention of the husband of the petitioner having sustained fracture in both legs.
Page 62 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 202528. That apart, the photographs appended with the petition clearly proved that the husband of the petitioner was beaten blue black as such injury cannot be simply brushed aside as "bruises". We are informed at the bar that the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil who remanded the husband of the petitioner is situated in the first floor and the petitioner who had sustained injuries was made to walk to the court despite his fractured legs.
29. This is probably a most unprecedented demonizing behavior on the part of the police perhaps one of the worst crime in a civilized society governed by the rule of law.
30. If all that has been stated above was not enough, the respondents were all the more complacent when the CCTV Camera footage is not produced on the pretext that that CCTV Cameras in fact have not been installed in the police station, this is despite the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 2015 in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and others (2015) 8 SCC 744 wherein it was held that there was need for further direction that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee would study the CCTV Camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observation thereupon. The central oversight body that had been ordered to be set by Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to use of videography in the crime scene during investigation pursuant to directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. (2018) 5 SCC 311 and was further directed to issue appropriate instruction in this regard at the Page 63 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 earliest. Direction thereafter to ensure that CCTV Cameras are installed in each police station was thereafter issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 16.07.2020 in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and others (2020) 7 SCC 397 and thereafter vide order dated 16.09.2020 passed in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) SCC Online SC 999, all the States and Union Territories were directed to find out the exact position of CCTV Cameras quite police station as well as the constitution of the oversight committee in accordance with the order dated 03.04.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Shafhi Mohammad case ( supra). Thereafter such directions and in addition thereto certain other directions were passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2020 in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh ( 2021) 1 SCC 184. However, the State of Jharkhand has blatantly violated and openly flouted the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by not installing the CCTV Cameras in all the police station and now sought time up to 31st December, 2025 to do the needful albeit in different proceedings pending consideration before this Court.
31. Reverting back once again to the facts of the instant case, the suspension order passed by the Superintendent of Police Seraikella-
Kharsawan, prima facie acknowledges the lapses on the part of the police officials specially the Officer-In-Charge, Ichagarh Police Station and therefore, some interim compensation has to be awarded in favour of the husband of the petitioner which will of course not affect his right to claim additional compensation by way of civil/criminal action (refer:
3 Judge decision in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others (2006) Page 64 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025 3 SCC 178) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was by now well settled that the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redressal of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 by a public servant. The quantum of compensation would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and such award by way of public law remedy will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal procedure. It was further held that the award of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in addition to private law remedy under the law of tort was evolved in the last two and half decades. It was also held that in case where there is custodial death or custodial torture or other violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 is established, the Court may award compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, we direct the respondent State to pay, by way of interim compensation a sum of Rs.
1,50,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) within one week to the husband of the petitioner which, at the first instance, shall be paid by the State Government but shall thereafter be recovered from the erring officials/officers.
33. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.
34. List this case on 07.01.2026, Page 65 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
35. In the meanwhile, the Director, Health Services, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, will hold an enquiry into the matter as stated above and submit the report to this Court well before the next date of hearing.
36. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director, Health Services, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand by the Registry for compliance.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 11/12/2025 .A.F.R. Sharda/-
Uploaded On :11.12.2025 Page 66 of 66 W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025