LAHRA BAI TAMRE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2026 INSC 8401

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 728 OF 2026

LAHRA BAI TAMRE & ORS. ….PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHATTISGARH

AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners herein, being the legal heirs, i.e.,

wife and children respectively of Late Shri Shravan

Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre1, approached the High

Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur2 by way of Writ

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘deceased’.

2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.

Petition (Criminal) No.76 of 2024, seeking the

following reliefs: -

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire records from the

respondent authorities pertaining to the

deceased Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan

Tamre for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the respondent police

authorities to file the prosecution before the

competent court on the basis

of marg intimation and other relevant,

documents which have been submitted by the

petitioners in the instant petition. This Hon'ble

Court may kindly be pleased to also direct the

respondent police authorities to grant

compensation amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the petitioners for their

rehabilitation against custodial death of the

deceased Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan

Tamre who died after arresting by the police of

Police Station Seepat/respondent No.5.”

3. In sum and substance, the petitioners were

aggrieved of the rank inaction shown by the

respondents in investigating the custodial death of

Shri Shravan Suryavanshi, and also sought a

direction to the State to grant appropriate

compensation to the petitioners.

4. The High Court while deciding the writ petition

vide judgment dated 3rd October, 2024, held that Shri

Shravan Suryavanshi was subjected to custodial

violence and died as a result thereof. Inspite thereof,

it granted meagre compensation quantified at Rs.1

lakh to the petitioners and completely overlooked the

prayer made for directing action against the officers

who were responsible for the custodial death of Shri

Shravan Suryavanshi. Being aggrieved, the

petitioners are before us by way of this instant special

leave petition.

Brief facts: -

5. The deceased was apprehended in connection

with FIR No.47 dated 18th January, 2024, lodged at

Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

As per the FIR, the deceased was found in possession

of three bottles, each having a capacity of 2 litres,

containing raw Mahua liquor, i.e., a total quantity of

6 litres, valued at Rs.1,200/-. The deceased was

arrested by Head Constable No.195, Uma Shankar

Rathore, of Police Station Seepat and was taken to

the police station along with the seized articles.

Pursuant to his arrest and remand, the deceased was

lodged at Central Jail, Bilaspur, from where he was

referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, on 21st January,

2024, owing to deterioration in his health. He passed

away on 22nd January, 2024 at about 6:00 a.m. while

undergoing treatment. The dead body of Shri

Shravan Suryavanshi was thereafter sent for post-

mortem examination. The following injuries were

noticed by the medical board constituted to conduct

post-mortem upon the dead body: -

1. Bleeding from the tip of the penis.

2. Laceration on the occipital scalp, measuring 4 ×

2 × 0.5 cm, without stitches, accompanied by

swelling and bleeding.

3. Swelling with redness just above the right wrist.

4. Swelling on both legs.

5. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the outer side of

the right thigh, measuring 4 × 2 cm.

6. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the back of the

body, at the nape of the neck, measuring 4 × 3

cm.

6. The post-mortem examination recorded the

cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to

complications owing to head injury caused by a hard

and blunt object. The post-mortem report further

recorded that the injuries were antemortem and

opined regarding their approximate age as follows:

1. Injury No.2 (laceration on the occipital scalp) was

apparently within one day;

2. Injury No.3 (swelling with redness above the right wrist)

was apparently within two days; and

3. Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 (contusions on the outer side of the

right thigh and at the nape of the neck) were apparently

2 to 6 days old.

7. As the deceased was in custody at the time of

his death, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail,

Bilaspur, issued a letter dated 22nd January, 2024,

addressed to the learned District and Sessions

Judge, Bilaspur, requesting that a judicial inquiry be

conducted into the custodial death of Shri Shravan

Suryavanshi. Pursuant thereto, the learned District

and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, referred the matter to

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who

in turn, assigned the inquiry under Section 176 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 to the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, conducted

the inquiry, and submitted a detailed report dated

22nd July, 2024, opining that the death of the

deceased appeared to have been caused due to

complications arising from the head injury.

3 For short, ‘CrPC’.

8. When no action was forthcoming against the

persons responsible for the custodial death of the

deceased and no steps were taken for providing

compensation to his legal heirs, inspite of the

aforesaid pertinent finding recorded in the judicial

inquiry report, the petitioners instituted Writ Petition

(Criminal) No.76 of 2024 before the High Court,

seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs and

appropriate action against the officers responsible for

the custodial death of the deceased. The Division

Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ

petition by judgment dated 3rd October, 2024,

observing as below: -

“19. The above quoted judgements make it clear that

for the violation of fundamental rights of a citizen by

the State or its servants, in the purported exercise of

their powers, the affected citizen can resort to the

remedy in public law by taking recourse to Article

226 of the Constitution of India. It further makes it

clear that the compensation is in the nature of

"exemplary damages" awarded against the

wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and

is independent of the rights available to the

aggrieved party to claim compensation under the

private law in an action based on tort, through a suit

instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction

or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.

Thus, it is settled law that compensation can be

awarded for violation of fundamental rights in public

law domain.

20. Above being the position of fact and law, we have

no hesitation in holding that the petitioners, who are

widow and daughters of the deceased detenu, are

entitled to compensation for wrongful loss of her

husband & father and the State being the employer

of the employees on account of whose negligence the

death of deceased took place, is liable to pay such

compensation to the petitioners.

21. Now the question is what should be the amount

of compensation. The Courts have time and again

deprecated such conduct on the part of the

police/jail officials, which is spelt out above, and

therefore the compensation, which is to be awarded,

should also have a deterrent effect on the State so

that its officers should not be encouraged to indulge

in such acts which may result in loss of a human

life, a fundamental right guaranteed under the

Constitution of India. Therefore, taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case, in particular the fact that the petitioners have

lost the estate, love & affection, and dependency due

to untimely death of deceased Shravan Suryavanshi

@ Sarvan Tamre at the age of 34 years on account of

negligence on the part of the employees of the State,

we are inclined to issue a writ of mandamus

directing the respondent-State to pay a

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)

to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from

the date of this order, failing which this amount will

carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the

date of passing of this order. The Director General of

Jail, Chhattisgarh, Raipur will ensure payment of

the compensation awarded within the time limit

specified.

22. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to

the extent indicated above.”

9. The offence alleged against the deceased was

punishable with imprisonment which could extend to

three years, besides the prescribed fine. Thus, a

person who had been taken into custody in

connection with an offence carrying a maximum

sentence of three years ultimately died while in the

custody of the State, allegedly on account of injuries

sustained during the period of such custody.

10. The High Court, having found that the death of

the deceased was on account of the violence

committed upon him during custody, disposed of the

matter by granting a pittance of compensation

quantified at Rs.1 lakh and, at the same time, did not

issue any consequential direction for registration of

an FIR or for conducting an investigation into the

circumstances leading to the custodial death of the

deceased. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before

us by way of this Special Leave Petition.

11. On 28th July, 2026, this Court passed the

following order: -

“The writ petition before the High Court, filed by the

wife (petitioner no.1) and daughters (petitioner nos.

2 and 3) of the deceased, sought two reliefs, firstly,

a fair investigation into the custodial death of the

deceased and secondly, compensation of

Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the custodial death.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by

awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and

without issuing any direction for the registration of

an F.I.R. and investigation into the matter.

Notice was issued in the present special leave

petition on 08.01.2026.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State of

Chhattisgarh. However, it does not disclose the

steps taken with respect to lodging of the F.I.R. and

the investigation into the custodial death of the

husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner

nos. 2 and 3.

Further, the amount of compensation awarded by

the High Court appears to be completely inadequate

and not commensurate with the gravity of the loss

suffered by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State of

Chhattisgarh shall obtain instructions within a

week.

List the matter again on 04.08.2026.

On the said date, the Director General of Police and

Principal Secretary (Home) for the State of

Chhattisgarh, to remain present through video

conference.”

12. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the

Director General of Police, the Director General

(Prisons) and the Principal Secretary (Home), State of

Chhattisgarh, joined the hearing before this Court,

proceedings through virtual mode on 4th August,

2026. Upon pertinent query being made by this

Court, the Director General of Police took a totally

intransigent stance stating that, since the inquiry

report under Section 176 CrPC had not been received

by the police, there was no occasion for registration

of a criminal case so as to investigate the custodial

death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi.

13. The Director General (Prisons) also furnished a

rather perfunctory and pedantic explanation for the

grave omission to forward the judicial inquiry report

to the police officials concerned for necessary follow-

up action. A similar indifferent approach was

exhibited by the Principal Secretary (Home) as well.

14. It is not in dispute that the custodial death of

the deceased was inquired into by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, under Section 176

CrPC and the inquiry report was submitted on 22nd

July, 2024. These facts are borne out from the record

and have also been noticed by the High Court. In this

backdrop, the stance of blissful ignorance taken by

the senior officers of the State of Chhattisgarh,

including the Principal Secretary (Home); the Director

General of Police and the Director General (Prisons),

is sacrilegious and reflects a disturbing disregard of

the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths.

15. The explanation offered that neither any police

action nor any disciplinary action was taken against

the persons responsible because the judicial inquiry

report had not been served upon the police officials is

a cover-up story and an attempt to pull the wool over

the Court’s eyes. It is pertinent to note that in the

reply filed by the State before the High Court, the

State had itself disclosed that the judicial inquiry

under Section 176 CrPC had been instituted and that

the inquiry report was awaited. The said reply,

therefore, clearly establishes that the State

authorities were conscious of the judicial inquiry into

the custodial death and were awaiting its outcome.

The said inquiry report was available on the record

when the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the writ

petition. Thus, the submission made by the Director

General of Police before this Court that there was no

occasion to register a criminal case as the judicial

inquiry report had not been received by the police

officials is patently false and wholly reprehensible.

16. That apart, we have seen the medical reports of

the deceased Shravan and find that a clear attempt

was made to mislead the inquiry because, in the

medical report prepared at the jail at the time of his

death, the cause of death was recorded as

cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration

pneumonitis, with the diagnosis being alcoholic

withdrawal and delirium tremens. There is no

reference whatsoever in the said medical report to the

head injury or any of the other injuries subsequently

noticed in the post-mortem report, which recorded

multiple external injuries and opined that the cause

of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to head

injury and its complications caused by a hard and

blunt object. The post-mortem report was for the

first time placed on record with an additional affidavit

filed by the State in compliance of the order dated

28th July, 2026. The petitioners have clearly alleged

that, for the first time, they have been able to lay

hands on the same. The post-mortem was conducted

in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class and bears his signatures, presumably

because the same was undertaken during the course

of the inquiry under Section 176 CrPC.

17. Having regard to the age of the injuries noted in

the post-mortem report, particularly Injury No. 2,

being the laceration on the occipital scalp which was

opined to be within one day, and Injuries Nos. 5 and

6 which were opined to be 2 to 6 days old, the

possibility of the deceased having sustained these

multiple injuries spread over the period of his

custody cannot be ruled out. The facts, therefore,

clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR

and a thorough investigation into the circumstances

leading to the death of Shri Shravan, which, the State

authorities conveniently and deliberately tried to

cover up. The fact that the post-mortem report was

not placed before the High Court and that the

relevant material was brought on record only

pursuant to the directions issued by this Court

further highlights the dilatory approach adopted by

the State authorities.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we

are of the firm opinion that the ends of justice require

that the investigation into the circumstances leading

to the custodial death of Shri Shravan be entrusted

to the Central Bureau of Investigation4 and that all

officials found responsible for the custodial violence,

upon completion of the investigation, be proceeded

against and prosecuted in accordance with law.

19. Accordingly, the Director, CBI, shall forthwith

ensure registration of a regular criminal case in

relation to the custodial death of Shri Shravan. The

investigation shall be entrusted to a senior officer of

CBI and shall be conducted expeditiously. The report

of the Investigating Officer shall be placed before this

Court for its perusal on the next date of hearing. The

conduct of the concerned State officials in failing to

take appropriate steps pursuant to the submission of

the judicial inquiry report shall also be duly

examined and made a part of the investigation.

20. The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh

shall ensure that the complete records of the case are

4 For short, “CBI”.

transmitted to the Director CBI through a special

messenger within a week from today.

21. The finding recorded by the High Court that the

deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family and

that he died an unnatural death on account of

violence suffered during the period of his custody

with the State is not even disputed by the State of

Chhattisgarh.

22. Thus, as an interim measure, we direct that

compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-

Five Lakhs Only) shall be paid by the State of

Chhattisgarh to the petitioners herein. The final

quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners

shall be determined while adjudicating the instant

petition. The interim compensation as directed above

shall be paid into the bank account of petitioner

No.1-Smt. Lahra Bai Tamre within a period of four

weeks from today. The account details shall be

furnished by learned counsel for the petitioners to

learned counsel appearing for the State of

Chhattisgarh within a period of seven days.

23. A copy of this order shall be electronically

transmitted to the Principal Secretary (Home), State

of Chhattisgarh; Director General of Police, State of

Chhattisgarh; Director General (Prisons), State of

Chhattisgarh; and Director, Central Bureau of

Investigation, New Delhi.

24. List again on 13th October, 2026.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 12, 2026.

2026 INSC 8401

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 728 OF 2026

LAHRA BAI TAMRE & ORS. ….PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHATTISGARH

AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners herein, being the legal heirs, i.e.,

wife and children respectively of Late Shri Shravan

Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre1, approached the High

Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur2 by way of Writ

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘deceased’.

2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.

Petition (Criminal) No.76 of 2024, seeking the

following reliefs: -

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire records from the

respondent authorities pertaining to the

deceased Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan

Tamre for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the respondent police

authorities to file the prosecution before the

competent court on the basis

of marg intimation and other relevant,

documents which have been submitted by the

petitioners in the instant petition. This Hon'ble

Court may kindly be pleased to also direct the

respondent police authorities to grant

compensation amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the petitioners for their

rehabilitation against custodial death of the

deceased Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan

Tamre who died after arresting by the police of

Police Station Seepat/respondent No.5.”

3. In sum and substance, the petitioners were

aggrieved of the rank inaction shown by the

respondents in investigating the custodial death of

Shri Shravan Suryavanshi, and also sought a

direction to the State to grant appropriate

compensation to the petitioners.

4. The High Court while deciding the writ petition

vide judgment dated 3rd October, 2024, held that Shri

Shravan Suryavanshi was subjected to custodial

violence and died as a result thereof. Inspite thereof,

it granted meagre compensation quantified at Rs.1

lakh to the petitioners and completely overlooked the

prayer made for directing action against the officers

who were responsible for the custodial death of Shri

Shravan Suryavanshi. Being aggrieved, the

petitioners are before us by way of this instant special

leave petition.

Brief facts: -

5. The deceased was apprehended in connection

with FIR No.47 dated 18th January, 2024, lodged at

Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

As per the FIR, the deceased was found in possession

of three bottles, each having a capacity of 2 litres,

containing raw Mahua liquor, i.e., a total quantity of

6 litres, valued at Rs.1,200/-. The deceased was

arrested by Head Constable No.195, Uma Shankar

Rathore, of Police Station Seepat and was taken to

the police station along with the seized articles.

Pursuant to his arrest and remand, the deceased was

lodged at Central Jail, Bilaspur, from where he was

referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, on 21st January,

2024, owing to deterioration in his health. He passed

away on 22nd January, 2024 at about 6:00 a.m. while

undergoing treatment. The dead body of Shri

Shravan Suryavanshi was thereafter sent for post-

mortem examination. The following injuries were

noticed by the medical board constituted to conduct

post-mortem upon the dead body: -

1. Bleeding from the tip of the penis.

2. Laceration on the occipital scalp, measuring 4 ×

2 × 0.5 cm, without stitches, accompanied by

swelling and bleeding.

3. Swelling with redness just above the right wrist.

4. Swelling on both legs.

5. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the outer side of

the right thigh, measuring 4 × 2 cm.

6. Bluish-green/dark contusion on the back of the

body, at the nape of the neck, measuring 4 × 3

cm.

6. The post-mortem examination recorded the

cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to

complications owing to head injury caused by a hard

and blunt object. The post-mortem report further

recorded that the injuries were antemortem and

opined regarding their approximate age as follows:

1. Injury No.2 (laceration on the occipital scalp) was

apparently within one day;

2. Injury No.3 (swelling with redness above the right wrist)

was apparently within two days; and

3. Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 (contusions on the outer side of the

right thigh and at the nape of the neck) were apparently

2 to 6 days old.

7. As the deceased was in custody at the time of

his death, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail,

Bilaspur, issued a letter dated 22nd January, 2024,

addressed to the learned District and Sessions

Judge, Bilaspur, requesting that a judicial inquiry be

conducted into the custodial death of Shri Shravan

Suryavanshi. Pursuant thereto, the learned District

and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, referred the matter to

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who

in turn, assigned the inquiry under Section 176 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 to the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, conducted

the inquiry, and submitted a detailed report dated

22nd July, 2024, opining that the death of the

deceased appeared to have been caused due to

complications arising from the head injury.

3 For short, ‘CrPC’.

8. When no action was forthcoming against the

persons responsible for the custodial death of the

deceased and no steps were taken for providing

compensation to his legal heirs, inspite of the

aforesaid pertinent finding recorded in the judicial

inquiry report, the petitioners instituted Writ Petition

(Criminal) No.76 of 2024 before the High Court,

seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs and

appropriate action against the officers responsible for

the custodial death of the deceased. The Division

Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ

petition by judgment dated 3rd October, 2024,

observing as below: -

“19. The above quoted judgements make it clear that

for the violation of fundamental rights of a citizen by

the State or its servants, in the purported exercise of

their powers, the affected citizen can resort to the

remedy in public law by taking recourse to Article

226 of the Constitution of India. It further makes it

clear that the compensation is in the nature of

"exemplary damages" awarded against the

wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and

is independent of the rights available to the

aggrieved party to claim compensation under the

private law in an action based on tort, through a suit

instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction

or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.

Thus, it is settled law that compensation can be

awarded for violation of fundamental rights in public

law domain.

20. Above being the position of fact and law, we have

no hesitation in holding that the petitioners, who are

widow and daughters of the deceased detenu, are

entitled to compensation for wrongful loss of her

husband & father and the State being the employer

of the employees on account of whose negligence the

death of deceased took place, is liable to pay such

compensation to the petitioners.

21. Now the question is what should be the amount

of compensation. The Courts have time and again

deprecated such conduct on the part of the

police/jail officials, which is spelt out above, and

therefore the compensation, which is to be awarded,

should also have a deterrent effect on the State so

that its officers should not be encouraged to indulge

in such acts which may result in loss of a human

life, a fundamental right guaranteed under the

Constitution of India. Therefore, taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case, in particular the fact that the petitioners have

lost the estate, love & affection, and dependency due

to untimely death of deceased Shravan Suryavanshi

@ Sarvan Tamre at the age of 34 years on account of

negligence on the part of the employees of the State,

we are inclined to issue a writ of mandamus

directing the respondent-State to pay a

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)

to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from

the date of this order, failing which this amount will

carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the

date of passing of this order. The Director General of

Jail, Chhattisgarh, Raipur will ensure payment of

the compensation awarded within the time limit

specified.

22. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to

the extent indicated above.”

9. The offence alleged against the deceased was

punishable with imprisonment which could extend to

three years, besides the prescribed fine. Thus, a

person who had been taken into custody in

connection with an offence carrying a maximum

sentence of three years ultimately died while in the

custody of the State, allegedly on account of injuries

sustained during the period of such custody.

10. The High Court, having found that the death of

the deceased was on account of the violence

committed upon him during custody, disposed of the

matter by granting a pittance of compensation

quantified at Rs.1 lakh and, at the same time, did not

issue any consequential direction for registration of

an FIR or for conducting an investigation into the

circumstances leading to the custodial death of the

deceased. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before

us by way of this Special Leave Petition.

11. On 28th July, 2026, this Court passed the

following order: -

“The writ petition before the High Court, filed by the

wife (petitioner no.1) and daughters (petitioner nos.

2 and 3) of the deceased, sought two reliefs, firstly,

a fair investigation into the custodial death of the

deceased and secondly, compensation of

Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the custodial death.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by

awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and

without issuing any direction for the registration of

an F.I.R. and investigation into the matter.

Notice was issued in the present special leave

petition on 08.01.2026.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State of

Chhattisgarh. However, it does not disclose the

steps taken with respect to lodging of the F.I.R. and

the investigation into the custodial death of the

husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner

nos. 2 and 3.

Further, the amount of compensation awarded by

the High Court appears to be completely inadequate

and not commensurate with the gravity of the loss

suffered by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State of

Chhattisgarh shall obtain instructions within a

week.

List the matter again on 04.08.2026.

On the said date, the Director General of Police and

Principal Secretary (Home) for the State of

Chhattisgarh, to remain present through video

conference.”

12. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the

Director General of Police, the Director General

(Prisons) and the Principal Secretary (Home), State of

Chhattisgarh, joined the hearing before this Court,

proceedings through virtual mode on 4th August,

2026. Upon pertinent query being made by this

Court, the Director General of Police took a totally

intransigent stance stating that, since the inquiry

report under Section 176 CrPC had not been received

by the police, there was no occasion for registration

of a criminal case so as to investigate the custodial

death of Shri Shravan Suryavanshi.

13. The Director General (Prisons) also furnished a

rather perfunctory and pedantic explanation for the

grave omission to forward the judicial inquiry report

to the police officials concerned for necessary follow-

up action. A similar indifferent approach was

exhibited by the Principal Secretary (Home) as well.

14. It is not in dispute that the custodial death of

the deceased was inquired into by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, under Section 176

CrPC and the inquiry report was submitted on 22nd

July, 2024. These facts are borne out from the record

and have also been noticed by the High Court. In this

backdrop, the stance of blissful ignorance taken by

the senior officers of the State of Chhattisgarh,

including the Principal Secretary (Home); the Director

General of Police and the Director General (Prisons),

is sacrilegious and reflects a disturbing disregard of

the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths.

15. The explanation offered that neither any police

action nor any disciplinary action was taken against

the persons responsible because the judicial inquiry

report had not been served upon the police officials is

a cover-up story and an attempt to pull the wool over

the Court’s eyes. It is pertinent to note that in the

reply filed by the State before the High Court, the

State had itself disclosed that the judicial inquiry

under Section 176 CrPC had been instituted and that

the inquiry report was awaited. The said reply,

therefore, clearly establishes that the State

authorities were conscious of the judicial inquiry into

the custodial death and were awaiting its outcome.

The said inquiry report was available on the record

when the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the writ

petition. Thus, the submission made by the Director

General of Police before this Court that there was no

occasion to register a criminal case as the judicial

inquiry report had not been received by the police

officials is patently false and wholly reprehensible.

16. That apart, we have seen the medical reports of

the deceased Shravan and find that a clear attempt

was made to mislead the inquiry because, in the

medical report prepared at the jail at the time of his

death, the cause of death was recorded as

cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration

pneumonitis, with the diagnosis being alcoholic

withdrawal and delirium tremens. There is no

reference whatsoever in the said medical report to the

head injury or any of the other injuries subsequently

noticed in the post-mortem report, which recorded

multiple external injuries and opined that the cause

of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to head

injury and its complications caused by a hard and

blunt object. The post-mortem report was for the

first time placed on record with an additional affidavit

filed by the State in compliance of the order dated

28th July, 2026. The petitioners have clearly alleged

that, for the first time, they have been able to lay

hands on the same. The post-mortem was conducted

in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class and bears his signatures, presumably

because the same was undertaken during the course

of the inquiry under Section 176 CrPC.

17. Having regard to the age of the injuries noted in

the post-mortem report, particularly Injury No. 2,

being the laceration on the occipital scalp which was

opined to be within one day, and Injuries Nos. 5 and

6 which were opined to be 2 to 6 days old, the

possibility of the deceased having sustained these

multiple injuries spread over the period of his

custody cannot be ruled out. The facts, therefore,

clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR

and a thorough investigation into the circumstances

leading to the death of Shri Shravan, which, the State

authorities conveniently and deliberately tried to

cover up. The fact that the post-mortem report was

not placed before the High Court and that the

relevant material was brought on record only

pursuant to the directions issued by this Court

further highlights the dilatory approach adopted by

the State authorities.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we

are of the firm opinion that the ends of justice require

that the investigation into the circumstances leading

to the custodial death of Shri Shravan be entrusted

to the Central Bureau of Investigation4 and that all

officials found responsible for the custodial violence,

upon completion of the investigation, be proceeded

against and prosecuted in accordance with law.

19. Accordingly, the Director, CBI, shall forthwith

ensure registration of a regular criminal case in

relation to the custodial death of Shri Shravan. The

investigation shall be entrusted to a senior officer of

CBI and shall be conducted expeditiously. The report

of the Investigating Officer shall be placed before this

Court for its perusal on the next date of hearing. The

conduct of the concerned State officials in failing to

take appropriate steps pursuant to the submission of

the judicial inquiry report shall also be duly

examined and made a part of the investigation.

20. The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh

shall ensure that the complete records of the case are

4 For short, “CBI”.

transmitted to the Director CBI through a special

messenger within a week from today.

21. The finding recorded by the High Court that the

deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family and

that he died an unnatural death on account of

violence suffered during the period of his custody

with the State is not even disputed by the State of

Chhattisgarh.

22. Thus, as an interim measure, we direct that

compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-

Five Lakhs Only) shall be paid by the State of

Chhattisgarh to the petitioners herein. The final

quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners

shall be determined while adjudicating the instant

petition. The interim compensation as directed above

shall be paid into the bank account of petitioner

No.1-Smt. Lahra Bai Tamre within a period of four

weeks from today. The account details shall be

furnished by learned counsel for the petitioners to

learned counsel appearing for the State of

Chhattisgarh within a period of seven days.

23. A copy of this order shall be electronically

transmitted to the Principal Secretary (Home), State

of Chhattisgarh; Director General of Police, State of

Chhattisgarh; Director General (Prisons), State of

Chhattisgarh; and Director, Central Bureau of

Investigation, New Delhi.

24. List again on 13th October, 2026.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 12, 2026.