Court Emphasizes Mandatory FIR Registration in Custodial Death Cases, Rejects Police Reliance Solely on Accidental Death Inquiry; Investigation to be Supervised by DIG, CID Crime
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Gujarat High Court addressed the critical issue of custodial death and the corresponding investigative responsibilities of the police. The case arose from the death of Mr. Jawri Mal Bishnoi, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Rajkot, who died allegedly after jumping from a window while in custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during an anti-corruption trap operation.
The court observed that despite a cognizable offence being disclosed through complaints and supporting materials relating to the custodial death, the police failed to register an FIR. Instead, they treated the incident as an accidental death and initiated an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court underscored that such an approach violates established legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark cases, including Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
According to the judgment, inquiries under Sections 174 and 176 Cr.P.C. serve distinct purposes. Section 174 inquiries aim only to ascertain the apparent cause of death, while judicial inquiries under Section 176 are supplementary and not a substitute for a full-fledged police investigation. The police possess statutory powers and investigative tools necessary to probe such serious offences, which are not available to magistrates conducting inquiries. Therefore, police officers cannot avoid their obligation to register an FIR and investigate when the circumstances disclose a cognizable offence.
The factual matrix revealed that Mr. Bishnoi was arrested on March 24, 2023, on allegations of demanding bribes in an official capacity. Despite his arrest, he was kept in custody at his office without prompt production before a magistrate, in violation of Section 167 Cr.P.C. and Article 22(2) of the Constitution. The court highlighted that the explanation that the deceased was uncooperative did not justify this delay.
The deceased's family alleged torture, illegal detention, threats, and non-production before the magistrate. They also claimed that threats were made to implicate family members in false cases if they did not cooperate. Post-mortem reports indicated multiple injuries inconsistent with a simple accidental fall, raising serious doubts about the circumstances of death.
The court noted that multiple inquiries had been conducted, including an inquest under Section 174, a judicial inquiry under Section 176, and an SIT investigation, all of which exonerated the police officers involved. However, the court found these investigations inadequate to replace a proper police investigation initiated by an FIR.
Reiterating the Supreme Court's mandate, the Gujarat High Court held that once material discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. The court also emphasized its role as protector of constitutional rights, especially in cases involving custodial death, where usual alternative remedies may be inadequate.
Accordingly, the court directed the police to register an FIR against unknown persons, without naming suspects at this stage, to ensure an impartial investigation. Further, it entrusted the investigation to the supervision of the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), CID Crime, to guarantee fairness, independence, and promptitude. The DIG was ordered to conclude the investigation and submit a report within three months, which shall be placed before the High Court.
This ruling reinforces the legal principles protecting individuals in custody and mandates strict adherence to procedural safeguards, including prompt FIR registration and independent investigation in custodial death cases.
Bottom Line:
Custodial death - Where complaint and surrounding material disclose cognizable offence, police cannot avoid registration of FIR by merely treating death as accidental and relying upon inquiries under Sections 174 and 176 Cr.P.C. - Judicial inquiry is in addition to, and not a substitute for, police investigation - FIR directed to be registered against unknown persons and investigation entrusted to independent supervision of DIG, CID Crime.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 154, 167, 174, 176, 173, 482; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7; Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 389, 34; Constitution of India Articles 21, 22(2), 226
Suman Bishnoi v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992763
