Custodial death: Gujarat High Court orders FIR and independent probe, saying a judicial inquiry cannot replace police investigation

Jawri Mal Bishnoi, a Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, was arrested by the CBI on 24 March 2023 in a bribery trap and died the following morning while in CBI custody.

The CBI’s account was that he jumped from a fourth-floor window; the petitioner alleged custodial mistreatment and circumstances requiring investigation.

Police registered an accidental-death case and conducted an inquiry, while a judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC and an SIT investigation did not find CBI officers responsible for the death.

The deceased’s son complained to the police and the Magistrate, seeking action against the officers, but no FIR was registered.

The petitioner therefore sought relief under Articles 226 and 482 of the Constitution and the CrPC.

Whether the information and circumstances concerning the death in custody disclosed a cognizable offence requiring registration of an FIR, notwithstanding the inquiries conducted under Sections 174 and 176 CrPC.

Whether the Court should direct FIR registration and independent investigation despite the alternative remedies ordinarily available for non-registration of an FIR and the prior inquiries.

Section 154 CrPC requires registration of an FIR where information discloses a cognizable offence, followed by investigation and a report under Section 173; an adverse or closure conclusion is for the Magistrate to consider on the investigation record.

An inquiry under Section 174 CrPC is directed to ascertaining the apparent cause of death, while a judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) is additional to, and not a substitute for, a police investigation into a disclosed cognizable offence.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 167 CrPC require an arrested person to be produced before a Magistrate within the prescribed period; the Court observed that the 24-hour limit does not entitle an agency to retain an arrested person for that entire period without production.

Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, supports mandatory FIR registration when a cognizable offence is disclosed.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, recognises the State’s duty to protect the life of a person in custody.

The Court also relied on the distinction between an inquiry and an investigation, including the definition discussed in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and on the custodial-death approach in Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court considered that the post-mortem recorded multiple injuries and that the local inquiry appeared to have treated them as injuries from the fall; it also noted that the forensic report concerning a mobile-phone recording had not yet been received.

The Court further considered the allegation that the deceased remained at the CBI office after arrest and was not produced before a Magistrate.

These matters, viewed with the complaints concerning the custodial death, warranted investigation rather than being resolved through the limited inquiries under Sections 174 and 176 CrPC.

The Court did not determine whether any officer committed an offence; it held that the issues should be examined through an FIR-based investigation.

To address concerns about fairness and independence, it directed that the FIR be registered against an unknown person.

It directed registration of an FIR against an unknown person and ordered that the investigation be conducted under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime.

The investigation was to be concluded and an appropriate report forwarded to the Registry within three months; the petition was disposed of accordingly.