JHARKHAND HIGH COURT DIRECTS JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO CUSTODIAL DEATH, DECLINES TO RECORD CONTEMPT FINDING AT THIS STAGE
BACKGROUND
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Saida Khatoon & Ors. v. Smt. Vandana Dadel & Ors., Cont. Case (Civil) No. 571 of 2025 on 18.06.2026, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, has disposed of a contempt petition filed for alleged non-compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416. The Petition was filed by the parents and brother of Mahfuz Ahmad, who died on 23.03.2025 at RIMS, Ranchi, allegedly as a consequence of custodial torture at Nawa Bazar Police Station, Palamu and at the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Palamu.
THE PETITIONERS’ CASE
The Petitioners alleged that the deceased was forcibly taken from his nursing home on 01.03.2025 and subjected to custodial assault over several days, including at the residence of Superintendent of Police. It was alleged that officials of Chhatarpur Police Station joined the assault on 02.03.2025 and that the deceased was later shifted through Medini Rai Medical College (MMCH), Palamu to RIMS, Ranchi, where he succumbed to his injuries. The Petitioner relied on the Order sheet of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamu dated 06.03.2025, which records the word “injured” against the deceased’s name and contains a separately drawn “later on” portion directing medical treatment. They also relied on a RIMs bid ticket showing a referral date of 04.03.2025 to contend that the deceased was in custody well before the police version of 06.03.2025.
THE STATE’S CASE
The State denied custodial violence and asserted that the deceased was a member of a banned militant organisation, the Jharkhand Tritiya Sammelan Prastuti Committee (TSPC) and was apprehended for the first time only on 06.03.2025 in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 25 od 2025, registered for armed robbery and arms offences. The State relied on call detail records and WhatsApp logs to argue that the deceased was at liberty on 01.03.2025 and 02.03.2025. It further contended that the injuries were sustained when the deceased fell from a motorcycle while fleeting arrest and that this was corroborated by the medical record.
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD
The Court examined the discrepancy between the medical fitness certificate dates 06.03.2025, which recorded the deceased as fit for custody and a photocopy of the same document bearing an added advice for an X-ray and medicines for a fracture of the left forearm. Dr Vijay Kumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent, MMCH, deposed that the original certificate was not produced before him and that he had attested only a photocopy on the basis of the investigating officer’s representation that the original was misplaced. The Court directed production of the Admission Register and the Referred-Out Register of MMCH in original and on 11.05.2026 recorded that Dr. Singh accepted the possibility of an error in the entry in the record register. The Court also noted the unexplained gap in registration numbers in the admission register and multiple cuttings and overwriting on the discharge ticket.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The Court reproduced the eleven safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu governing arrest and detention and Paragraph 36 of that Judgement, which provides that non-compliance renders the concerned official liable both to departmental action and to punishment for contempt. The Court held that before initiating contempt proceedings, a concrete finding of violation of the D.K. Basu directions is required and that the rival factual assertions on record did not permit such a finding at this stage. The Court relied on the Judgement of a Coordinate Division Bench in Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(PIL) No. 1218 of 2022, which held that an inquiry into custodial death must be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) CrPC or Section 196(2) BNSS and that an inquiry by an Executive Magistrate cannot substitute for a judicial inquiry.
The Court did not record a finding of contempt. It directed the Principal District Judge, Palamu at Daltonganj, to commence a judicial inquiry within fifteen days of receipt of the order by nominating a Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 196(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Judicial Magistrate is to submit a report before the High Court within three months from the commencement of the inquiry. The matter is to be listed after the receipt of the inquiry report, upon which further orders will be passed. The original registers produced before the Court were directed to be handed over to the State counsel for onwards transmission.
CONCLUSION
The Order extends the Md. Mumtaz Ansari framework on mandatory judicial inquiry into custodial deaths to a case where the underlying facts remain contested. It illustrates that a High Court exercising contempt jurisdiction under D.K. Basu will, in the presence of disputed medical and custodial records, defer a finding on non-compliance pending a statutory inquiry, rather than record contempt on the basis of affidavits and documentary discrepancies alone.
Shomdeepta Chanda
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
watch our latest video on NEET Protest