Court emphasizes need for prima facie evidence to substantiate custodial violence claims; directs no action against police in absence of corroborative material
In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Madhu Jain, dismissed a petition filed by Akash and another petitioner seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners had alleged illegal detention, custodial assault, torture, and extortion by police officials at the Jyoti Nagar Police Station in Delhi. They demanded departmental action against the accused police personnel and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 each.
The petition arose from an incident related to a theft reported on the intervening night of June 12-13, 2026, at premises in Ashok Nagar, Delhi. FIR No. 267/2026 was registered against unknown persons. The petitioners, tenants of the ground floor, were called to the police station allegedly as witnesses. They claimed they were detained for six hours on June 13, 2026, during which police officials demanded and received Rs. 25,000 from them. Subsequently, on July 18, 2026, the petitioners were again summoned and allegedly assaulted by police when they refused to confess to involvement in the theft. Medical examination of one petitioner showed tenderness and swelling consistent with physical assault.
The petitioners contended that their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated through custodial torture and illegal detention. Relying on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., they argued that no person, whether accused or witness, should be subjected to torture in police custody.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, countered that the petitioners were not witnesses but suspects in the investigation. The State disputed the timing and circumstances of the emergency call made by the petitioners' relative and denied any custodial assault. It also highlighted the absence of independent corroboration linking the police officials to the alleged injuries.
After examining the evidence, including the medical legal certificate (MLC) for one petitioner and the notices under Sections 179 and 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Court found that the allegations of custodial torture lacked prima facie support. The MLC was based solely on the petitioner's account without independent verification or direct connection to the accused officers. No MLC was produced for the second petitioner. The Court noted that mere assertions without corroborative material could not justify departmental action or compensation.
The Court reiterated that while custodial torture is strictly prohibited, relief under Article 226 requires credible, prima facie evidence. It observed that the absence of the petitioners' names in the FIR against unknown persons did not conclusively establish their status as witnesses. Ultimately, the Court held that the material on record failed to establish illegal detention or custodial torture by the police and dismissed the petition.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's insistence on substantive evidence before directing punitive or compensatory measures against law enforcement officers in custodial abuse allegations. It also highlights the procedural safeguards enshrined in the BNSS, 2023, and the constitutional protections under Article 21.
Bottom Line:
Allegations of illegal detention and custodial torture must be substantiated with prima facie evidence for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, Sections 179 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Akash v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979225
