The Allahabad High Court recently directed a judicial inquiry into the death of a person who allegedly died while in the custody of the Special Task Force (STF), after noting that the post-mortem report recorded antemortem injuries on the deceased.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed the order while hearing a petition seeking transfer of the investigation into the case to the CBI or another independent agency for a fair and expeditious investigation.

The Court noted that the deceased had died while in STF custody. It further recorded that the post-mortem report showed that the deceased had sustained injuries before death, while the family members had specifically alleged that he died due to torture by STF personnel.

The Court noted that, despite its earlier direction, the mandatory judicial inquiry contemplated under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been conducted.

An earlier report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, dated April 3, 2025, made it clear that the judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) CrPC had not taken place.

A subsequent report stated that no request for such an inquiry had been made by the family members of the deceased and, therefore, no inquiry was conducted.

The High Court, however, reproduced Section 176(1-A) CrPC, which provides that where a person dies or disappears while in police custody or any other custody authorised by a Magistrate or Court, an inquiry is to be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate in addition to the police investigation.

The Bench also took note of an inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh, on August 16, 2024.

The SDM had referred to the medical report and acknowledged that the deceased had died while in the custody of the STF. However, the SDM had observed that the death appeared to be natural, as the deceased was a heart patient and had died of a heart attack.

The High Court subsequently noted the post-mortem finding of antemortem injuries, along with the specific allegation made by the deceased's family that he had died due to torture by STF personnel.

The Court also referred to the proceedings of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) concerning the interpretation of Section 176(1-A) of the CrPC.

The NHRC had observed in 2010 that a Judicial Magistrate's inquiry was mandatory in custodial deaths where there was reasonable suspicion of foul play or a well-founded allegation of an offence, while suggesting that natural custodial deaths could be examined by an Executive Magistrate.

However, the NHRC subsequently acknowledged an apparent ambiguity in that interpretation and withdrew its earlier circular after noting that Section 176(1-A), as amended by Parliament, required a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct the inquiry in cases falling within the provision.

After considering the material before it, the High Court concluded that the judicial inquiry in terms of Section 176(1-A) CrPC. would be required.

The Court accordingly directed the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh to issue necessary directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct the judicial inquiry in compliance with Section 176(1-A) CrPC.

The inquiry has been directed to be conducted and concluded with expedition, preferably within 6 weeks. The report is to be placed before the High Court on the next date of hearing (October 27) in a sealed cover.

Case title - Jhanvi Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614

Click here To Read/Download Order