The timeline is what troubles the Court. The High Court had granted the man bail; his family says his wife went to the jail the next day to convey the order, and that he told her he feared for his life; the day after that, he was dead inside the jail. The State’s response to an admitted death in custody, the Court found, offered no satisfactory explanation. It has now directed the head of the State’s prison administration to account for the death on affidavit, and to appear in person if he does not.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has sought an explanation from the Director General, Prison Administration and Reforms Services, Uttar Pradesh, over the death of a prisoner in the District Jail, Bijnor, observing that it is a matter of serious concern that an admitted death in custody has been met with no satisfactory explanation from the State.
A Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena directed the Director General to file a short counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the petitioner’s son died within the jail premises, within ten days, failing which he is to remain personally present before the Court.
The sequence of events
The direction came on a writ petition filed by the family of the deceased. According to the petition, the man had been convicted in February 2025 under Sections 394 and 411 of the IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to six years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine. He challenged the conviction and sought suspension of sentence, and a Single Judge of the High Court granted him bail on May 8, 2026.
He died in the District Jail, Bijnor, on May 10, 2026, two days after the bail order. The petition states that his wife visited the jail on May 9, the day after the order, to inform the authorities of the bail, and that during that visit he expressed an apprehension of a threat to his life. On May 10, the petition states, the family received a call informing them of his death, and were told that he had died by hanging within the hospital premises of the jail. The family have sought the CCTV footage and photographs relating to the circumstances of the death.
These are the allegations set out in the petition. The cause and circumstances of the death have not been judicially determined, and it is precisely that account which the Court has now directed the prison administration to provide.
The Court’s direction
The Court recorded that the petitioner’s case was that, despite the circumstances in which the death occurred, no satisfactory explanation had been provided as to how the man died while in custody. Treating an admitted custodial death unexplained by the State as a matter of serious concern, the Bench directed the Director General, Prison Administration and Reforms Services, to file a short counter-affidavit within ten days specifically stating the circumstances in which the death occurred in the jail premises.
Should the affidavit not be filed within that period, the Court directed, the Director General shall remain personally present before it. The matter has been listed for October 7, 2026.
Why it matters
A death in custody occupies a special place in the law precisely because the State has near-total control over the person held, and correspondingly a heightened duty to protect life and to account for a death that occurs behind prison walls. The Supreme Court has long held that where a person dies in custody, the burden is on the authorities to explain how, because the facts are peculiarly within their knowledge and the deceased cannot speak. The High Court’s insistence on a specific, sworn account from the head of the prison administration, and its readiness to summon him in person, reflects that principle: an unexplained custodial death is not a matter the State can leave unanswered.
Two features of the family’s account, if borne out, sharpen the concern. The first is timing: a man dies inside the jail two days after a court has ordered his release, before he could walk free. The second is the alleged apprehension of a threat to his life, said to have been voiced to his wife the day before the death. Neither has been established, and the manner of death itself is contested and undetermined, but they are the kind of circumstances that a bare or delayed explanation cannot lay to rest, which is why the family has sought the CCTV footage and the Court has demanded particulars.
It is important to be clear about what has and has not been decided. The Court has made no finding on how the man died, on whether anyone was at fault, or on whether the jail failed in its duty; it has directed the State to explain. As courts have repeatedly held, the State’s responsibility to account for a custodial death does not disappear even where a death is ultimately found to be by suicide, because the duty is to explain how a person in its charge came to die and whether that death could have been prevented. What happens next turns on the affidavit the Director General files, and on whether it satisfactorily answers the questions the Court has now put on the record.
Case: Writ petition concerning the death of a prisoner in District Jail, Bijnor, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena
Direction: Director General, Prison Administration and Reforms Services, U.P., to file a counter-affidavit within 10 days on the circumstances of the death, or remain personally present
Status: Explanation sought; allegations untested; cause of death not judicially determined. Listed for October 7, 2026.
This report refers to a death in custody, including an allegation of death by suicide. If you or someone you know needs support, the Tele-MANAS national mental health helpline can be reached at 14416 or 1-800-891-4416, round the clock, in multiple languages.