Custodial death is a flagrant betrayal of public trust and constitutional guarantees, justifying denial of bail.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the period of incarceration and the fact that co-accused persons were granted bail.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the heinous nature of custodial death and the specific evidence against the applicant precluded the grant of bail.

It also directed

The application was dismissed.

01Facts

The applicant, a police official, filed a third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the custodial death of 53-year-old Rajkali Kewat.

p. 1

The deceased was brought to Civil Lines Police Station, Rewa, on October 30, 2023, on suspicion of theft.

p. 1

The prosecution alleges that the applicant and other officers subjected the deceased to brutal physical assault, including electric shocks and blows with plastic pipes, to extract a confession.

pp. 1-2

The post-mortem report recorded 27 injuries, attributing death to shock and hemorrhage from homicidal violence.

p. 2

A judicial inquiry and CCTV footage corroborated that the deceased was physically fit upon arrival but was tortured in custody.

p. 2

The applicant has been in custody since January 23, 2025, following the dismissal of two prior bail applications.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the period of incarceration and the fact that co-accused persons were granted bail.

p. 2 / para. 3

ii.2. Whether the nature and heinousness of a custodial death outweigh the personal liberty of the accused in a bail plea.

pp. 3 / para. 5-6

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 302, 330, and 331 read with Section 34 of the IPC regarding murder and voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession.

p. 1

It relied on the constitutional mandate of Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 22(1) as interpreted in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997), which identifies custodial death as a "worst crime" in a civilized society.

p. 4

It further applied principles from Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble (2003) and Munshi Singh Gautam v. State M.P. (2005), which emphasize that courts must treat custodial torture with extreme sensitivity to prevent the "protector becoming the predator" and to maintain public faith in the judiciary.

pp. 4-5

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 330 Section 331 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the applicant’s contention that the deceased died due to prior injuries inflicted by her employers, noting that witnesses and medical evidence indicated she was fit when entering police custody.

p. 2

The Court observed that while the applicant sought parity with co-accused who were granted bail, those individuals had distinct grounds such as ailment or femininity.

p. 3

The Court reasoned that custodial death is a betrayal of public trust and a breakdown of constitutional machinery.

pp. 3-4

Applying the D.K. Basu precedent, the Court held that the "precious right guaranteed by Article 21" cannot be suspended upon arrest, and police excesses tarnish the image of the nation.

pp. 4-5

Given the "barbarity of torture" (27 injuries) and the findings of the Judicial Magistrate, the Court determined that the seriousness of the offence superseded the duration of the applicant’s detention.

p. 3, 6

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the heinous nature of custodial death and the specific evidence against the applicant precluded the grant of bail.

p. 6

The application was dismissed.

p. 6

LawLens.Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF