The Gujarat High Court has refused to direct registration of an FIR in a case involving allegations of custodial assault and custodial death, holding that the petitioner must first pursue the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice D.N. Ray passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Tofik Shaikh, who sought registration of an FIR and an independent investigation into the death of his father, Jahiruddin Gyasuddin Shaikh.
Background of the Case
According to the petition, Jahiruddin Gyasuddin Shaikh was arrested on 18 May 2026 in connection with a criminal case registered at Vejalpur Police Station in Ahmedabad. The petitioner alleged that during police custody, his father was subjected to physical assault and administered unidentified substances.
The deceased was later taken to multiple hospitals for treatment and was ultimately declared dead at SVP Hospital on 19 May 2026. An accidental death case was subsequently registered. The petitioner contended that the circumstances surrounding the death and the medical records warranted immediate registration of an FIR against the concerned police personnel.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh makes registration of an FIR mandatory whenever information discloses a cognizable offence.
It was submitted that despite serious allegations of custodial violence, no FIR had been registered, forcing the family to approach the High Court. The petitioner also sought an independent investigation, expressing apprehension that a fair probe could be compromised if conducted by the local police.
Justice Ray acknowledged the seriousness of custodial death allegations and observed that such incidents strike at the core of constitutional protections.
The Court noted, “Custodial death, undoubtedly is a heinous crime,” adding that such allegations often raise concerns because they are directed against authorities entrusted with protecting citizens.
At the same time, the Court examined whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be directly entertained for non-registration of an FIR. Referring to several Supreme Court decisions, including Sakiri Vasu, M. Subramaniam, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, and the recent decision in Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the law requires complainants to first use the remedies provided under the BNSS.
The Court observed that while Lalita Kumari mandates FIR registration where a cognizable offence is disclosed, the remedy for police inaction lies within the statutory framework, including approaching senior police officers and thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that it could not carve out a separate exception for custodial death cases and bypass the statutory mechanism prescribed under criminal law.
The Court stated that it was bound by the Supreme Court's consistent view that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked when effective alternative remedies are available.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue such alternative remedies as may be available under law. The Court also clarified that its order should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the allegations or on whether any cognizable offence was made out.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tofik Shaikh S/o Jahiruddin Gyasuddin Shaikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: R/Special Criminal Application No. 7352 of 2026
Judge: Justice D.N. Ray
Decision Date: 29 May 2026
