The High Court of Jharkhand on Monday sought detailed explanations from the State government over 437 deaths reported in police and judicial custody between 2018 and 2025.
Hearing a public interest litigation, the division bench led by the Chief Justice expressed concern over whether mandatory judicial inquiries were conducted in these cases, as required under the law.
“The safeguards provided under the law to rule out foul play must be duly complied with,” the bench observed during the proceedings.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Md. Mumtaz Ansari, seeking strict enforcement of Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision makes it compulsory for a Judicial Magistrate to conduct an independent inquiry whenever a person dies, disappears, or a woman alleges rape while in police or court-authorised custody.
The law clearly states that such an inquiry must be held in addition to any police investigation.
The court also referred to Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - the new criminal procedure law replacing the CrPC - which contains a similar requirement. Under the BNSS, a Magistrate must inquire into custodial deaths or alleged custodial rape and record evidence. The law also requires that relatives of the deceased be informed and allowed to remain present wherever practicable.
State’s Affidavit and Court’s Concern
During the hearing, the State placed on record an affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary of the Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department. The affidavit included a chart listing 437 custodial deaths from 2018 to 2025.
However, the court noted that while the chart mentioned whether the deaths were reported to a Magistrate, it did not clearly state whether judicial inquiries were actually conducted in each case.
“Information about whether any inquiry was held by the Judicial Magistrate in relation to these 437 deaths is crucial,” the bench said.
The judges pointed out that merely informing a Magistrate is not enough. The law requires an independent judicial inquiry alongside the police investigation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
Petitioner’s Submissions
Counsel for the petitioner argued that in most cases, no judicial inquiry had been conducted. He further submitted that relatives of the deceased were neither informed nor permitted to participate in any such inquiries, if they were held at all.
He described the number of custodial deaths as “abnormally excessive” and urged the court to ensure that statutory safeguards are strictly followed.
According to him, without judicial oversight, there is a risk that the cause of death may be determined solely by the police authorities, defeating the purpose of the law.
NHRC Guidelines and Legal Safeguards
The bench also raised questions about compliance with the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in cases of custodial death.
The court observed that it was not clear from the affidavit whether these guidelines were followed or whether the cause of death was determined through proper judicial processes.
“Considering the number of deaths, it is crucial to see whether the safeguards provided under the law to rule out foul play were duly complied with or not,” the bench remarked.
The judges emphasised that both the earlier CrPC and the new BNSS mandate independent scrutiny by a Magistrate in such sensitive cases.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
Court’s Direction
Taking note of the deficiencies in the affidavit, the court directed the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, to file a fresh and comprehensive affidavit.
The affidavit must clearly state:
- Whether a Judicial Magistrate conducted an inquiry in each of the 437 custodial deaths.
- Details of cases where no such inquiry was held.
- Compliance with the corresponding provisions under the BNSS for deaths from 2023 to 2025.
- Whether NHRC guidelines were followed.
- Whether relatives of the deceased were informed and allowed to participate in the inquiry process.
The court directed that the affidavit be filed by March 13, 2026, after serving an advance copy to the petitioner’s counsel. The matter has been listed for further consideration on March 19, 2026.
The bench made it clear that clarity on judicial oversight in custodial deaths is essential before the case can proceed further.
Case Title: Md. Mumtaz Ansari vs State of Jharkhand & Others
Case No.: W.P. (PIL) No. 1218 of 2022
Decision Date: 16 February 2026
