Custodial Death: Gujarat High Court Directs FIR Against Unknown Person

Why in News?

The Gujarat High Court directed registration of an FIR against an unknown person and ordered an independent investigation under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime into the alleged custodial death of an Indian Trade Service officer who died while in CBI custody.

Facts of the Case:

• Jawri Mal Bishnoi, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, was allegedly in CBI custody in connection with an illegal gratification case.
• His wife approached the High Court alleging that despite disclosure of a cognizable offence, police had not registered an FIR and were treating the death as accidental.
• The local police had conducted an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC (Section 194 BNSS).
• The post-mortem reportedly recorded 11 injuries, raising questions regarding the earlier explanation of the death.

What Did the Court Hold?

The Court held that cases involving custodial death require a different judicial approach, as the Court has a duty to protect the constitutional rights of a person in custody.

Where a cognizable offence is disclosed, the Court can direct registration of an FIR and ensure an effective investigation.

Section 174 CrPC — Section 194 BNSS:

Section 194 BNSS deals with police inquiry and report regarding suicide, etc., corresponding broadly to Section 174 CrPC.

The Court found loopholes in the earlier inquiry and held that such issues should be examined through a proper criminal investigation pursuant to an FIR, rather than being closed merely as an accidental death.

Production Before Magistrate:

The Court noted that the deceased was allegedly kept at the office premises from 19:00 hours without being produced before a Magistrate.

Section 167 CrPC — Section 187 BNSS:

• Where investigation cannot be completed within the prescribed initial period, the accused must be forwarded to the Magistrate for appropriate orders.
• The Court rejected the argument that non-cooperation during the search, including refusal to provide a mobile-phone password, could justify failure to produce the accused before the Magistrate.
• The investigating agency could have sought police or judicial remand through the Magistrate.

Important Principle on 24 Hours:

Article 22(2) provides that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding necessary journey time.

The Court clarified that the 24-hour period is a maximum constitutional limit, not a licence to retain an accused for the entire 24 hours without producing him before the Magistrate.

Why Independent Investigation?

Since an earlier investigation had been conducted by an SIT headed by an ACP, the Court considered an independent investigation necessary to ensure:

• Fair and impartial investigation
• Accountability
• Protection of constitutional rights
• Public confidence
• Investigation free from external influence

Accordingly, the FIR was directed to be registered against an unknown person, with further investigation under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime.

Constitutional Framework:

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty, including the rights of persons in custody.

Article 22(2): Production of an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours.

Section 187 BNSS (Section 167 CrPC): Procedure where investigation cannot be completed within the prescribed period.

Section 194 BNSS (Section 174 CrPC): Police inquiry and report in cases of suicide, suspicious death, etc.

Legal Principle:

Custody does not extinguish constitutional rights. The State has a heightened responsibility to protect the life, dignity and personal liberty of a person in custody.

Mains: In cases of custodial death, courts must ensure effective, independent and impartial investigation, particularly where prima facie circumstances indicate possible violation of Article 21.

Relevant Cases

1. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026 INSC 744

• Section 187 BNSS: Police custody of 15 days in aggregate can be sought in parts during the first 40/60 days of detention.
• Courts cannot impose an absolute bar on such later police custody.
• The Court also stressed Article 21 safeguards against custodial torture.

2. Dr. Ashish Shakya v. CBI, 2026

• Section 187(1) & (4) BNSS: An arrested person must be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
• First production and subsequent extension of police custody require personal production.
• The provision safeguards against arbitrary detention and enables judicial scrutiny of remand.

3. Paliniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 561

• Section 194 BNSS: Inquest is a preliminary and limited inquiry aimed at determining the apparent cause of death.
• It is not a substitute for a detailed criminal investigation.
• Non-mention of an accused in the inquest report does not by itself negate later allegations against him.