Uttarakhand HC stresses fair probe into allegations that police tortured 18-year-old and pulled out his nails

The petitioner alleged that her approximately 18-year-old son was taken by police personnel attached to Police Station Transit Camp, Udham Singh Nagar, on 14 June 2026, allegedly without registration of an FIR, and was thereafter repeatedly called to the police station.

He was allegedly handed over to the petitioner and her relatives on 17 June 2026 in a severely debilitated condition, unable to walk, with the nails of his hands and feet allegedly forcibly removed.

The petitioner alleged that her son had been brutally beaten and tortured by police personnel at Police Station Transit Camp and Awas Vikas Chowki, including by having water poured over him and being assaulted whenever he regained consciousness.

Representations were made before the police authorities, the Chief Minister’s Portal, the Human Rights Commission and the Inspector General of Police, but the petitioner alleged that no effective action had followed.

The writ petition sought directions for a fair and impartial investigation, registration of an FIR, protection and medical treatment for the petitioner’s son, admission to a suitable hospital, and consideration of compensation.

The State denied the allegations and relied upon medical material indicating no fracture, intact toenails and only old inflammation.

It also stated that the son’s custody had been handed over to his uncle and that the medical evidence did not support the allegations of beating with a rod or forcible removal of nails.

During the proceedings, an FIR concerning the allegations was registered and investigation commenced.

The State further stated that no CCTV cameras were installed at Awas Vikas Chowki.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to directions for a fair, impartial and effective investigation into the alleged illegal detention and custodial torture of her son.

Whether the Court should issue further directions regarding medical treatment, security, compensation, or other reliefs after the registration of an FIR and commencement of investigation.

Whether the alleged custody and treatment of the petitioner’s son could be verified through CCTV footage or other official records.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to consider allegations concerning illegal detention, custodial violence and failure to investigate.

The governing principle applied was that allegations of cognizable wrongdoing must be investigated fairly, impartially, expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law.

The Court also applied the principle that where an FIR has been registered and investigation is underway, the writ court may refrain from issuing additional directions at that stage, while leaving the investigating agency to complete the statutory investigation independently.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The petitioner’s allegations raised serious concerns regarding the legality of her son’s alleged detention and the treatment allegedly inflicted upon him by police personnel.

However, the State disputed the allegations and relied on medical material that did not substantiate fractures, forcible removal of nails or injuries caused by a rod or other weapon.

The Court also noted that the factual position regarding custody had been verified as having been handed over to the son’s uncle, and that the petitioner’s counsel acknowledged this position before the Court.

Since an FIR had subsequently been registered at the son’s instance and the investigation was in progress, the Court considered that the appropriate course was to allow the investigating agency to examine the competing factual and medical evidence rather than issue further directions in the writ petition.

Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that the investigation must be fair, impartial and expeditious and must not be influenced by the observations made in the order.

It directed, by way of expectation, that the investigating agency conduct the investigation fairly, impartially and expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.