The Supreme Court ordered registration of an FIR and an SIT probe into the alleged custodial death of a 70-year-old Gujarat man arrested in cow slaughter cases. It held that an unnatural death in police custody warrants investigation if material exists.
The Supreme Court directed the registration of an FIR to investigate the alleged custodial death of a 70-year-old man who had been arrested in connection with multiple cow slaughter cases in Ahmedabad, setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to order such registration and entrusting the investigation to a Special Investigation Team.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana held on July 23 that a prima facie case for the registration of an FIR was made out, without naming any suspect at this stage.
Directing the constitution of an investigating team and fixing a timeline, the Bench ordered,
“FIR under provisions of S.302 and 306 BNS shall be investigated by an SIT comprising of police officers in the rank of DCP along with two more officers to be nominated by DGP, Gujarat. SIT is directed to file final report before jurisdictional magistrate preferably in 3 months. If petitioner is dissatisfied, he shall be at liberty to submit protest petition and seek further investigation.”
The liberty reserved to the petitioner is significant. By expressly preserving the right to file a protest petition and seek further investigation, the Court has built in a check against a closure report being accepted without scrutiny a recurring concern in custodial death cases, where the investigating agency and the persons under investigation belong to the same force.
Appearing for the State of Gujarat, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju informed the Bench that a Magisterial enquiry was already under way, and submitted,
“Post-mortem was done by 5 doctors. No injury found.”
The Court was unpersuaded that this obviated the need for an FIR. Emphasising the threshold that an unnatural death in custody attracts, Justice Bagchi observed,
“Unnatural death in police custody…preliminary enquiry required. If there is any material, FIR has to be registered. Mr. Raju says Magistrate enquiry going on. Dying declaration only mentions he was assaulted.”
The observation goes to a settled principle. Under the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the registration of an FIR is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence, with a preliminary enquiry permissible only in limited categories. The existence of a parallel Magisterial enquiry which is itself statutorily required in cases of custodial death does not displace that obligation.
The deceased was arrested on May 18, 2026, in connection with offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
According to the record, he is stated to have taken some diabetes medication and was taken to the Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad for treatment. He was subsequently admitted to the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, where medico-legal case papers came to be prepared. After treatment was administered and certain medical tests conducted, he collapsed and was declared dead by the attending doctors.
A post-mortem examination was carried out on May 20, 2026 by a panel of five doctors from the Department of Forensic Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad.
On May 21, 2026, his son moved the Gujarat High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226, seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR and for an independent investigation.
Justice D.N. Ray of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition. While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations of custodial death, the High Court took the view that the petitioners were obliged first to exhaust the sequential statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 specifically, by approaching the Magistrate under Section 175(3) before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Section 175(3) of the BNSS, which corresponds broadly to Section 156(3) of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to investigate a cognizable offence.
The High Court’s reasoning thus rested on the availability of an alternative remedy rather than on the merits of the allegations.
Before the High Court, the petitioner had contended that the medico-legal case papers recorded that the incident occurred at the Vejalpur Police Station and carried an endorsement stating “Ask for Postmortem,” which, he argued, disclosed a cognizable offence attracting the mandatory obligation to register an FIR. Notwithstanding this, the High Court was told, no FIR had been registered against any police official.
The petitioner further alleged that substantial pressure had been brought to bear on the family to arrive at a settlement.
The Supreme Court’s intervention aligns with a long line of authority treating custodial deaths as demanding a distinct order of scrutiny, on the reasoning that a person in custody is entirely within the control of the State and is unable to secure evidence in his own cause. The safeguards mandated in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal proceed from the same premise.
The allegations are, at this stage, untested. No individual has been named as a suspect, and the SIT’s investigation is yet to commence.
Case Title: TOFIK SHAIKH Vs STATE OF GUJARAT