The Gujarat High Court has directed registration of an FIR "against an unknown person" and investigation by Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID Crime, into the alleged custodial death of Indian Trade Service officer who allegedly died in CBI custody in connection with an illegal gratification case. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 273]

The deceased's wife had approached the high court claiming that despite disclosure of cognizable offence the police was not registering an FIR and were treating the case as an accidental death. The petitioner claimed that her husband Jawri Mal Bishnoi, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, was an officer serving in the Indian Trade Service and had died in the custody of the CBI officers in connection with a corruption case.

Justice MK Thakker in her order said that where the offence is alleged to have occurred against a person while in police custody, or in a case of custodial death, the approach of the Court is required to be different, particularly when the Court is required to act as a protector of the constitutional rights of a citizen who, by virtue of an order passed in a judicial process, is in custody.

If such constitutional rights are violated by any officer or any other person in police custody, in jail or otherwise, the Court is required to intervene by directing the police authorities to register an FIR, the court said.

"The inquiry conducted by the local police under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. suffers from various loopholes. During the course of such inquiry, the injuries noticed in the post-mortem report appear to have been considered as injuries sustained due to the deceased having jumped from the window, though the post-mortem report records as many as eleven injuries. It is also stated that the FSL report with regard to the mobile phone of the son of the petitioner, in which the conversation recorded at the time of the search is stated to have been captured, is still awaited.

Further, the fact that the deceased was kept at the office premises from 19:00 hours, instead of producing him before the learned Magistrate as mandated under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., also appears to have been overlooked. The explanation offered that the deceased had not cooperated during the search by not providing the password of his mobile phone cannot, in any manner, justify non production of the deceased before the learned Magistrate, as the CBI officers could have sought his remand by producing him before the learned Magistrate immediately after his arrest and obtaining appropriate orders in accordance with law" the court said.

The court said that while it was true that the maximum period prescribed for production is 24 hours, however it cannot be construed to mean that the investigating agency is entitled to retain an accused in custody for the entire period of 24 hours without producing him before the Magistrate.

"Since no prejudice would be caused to any party, instead of entering into the details of such loopholes, it would be appropriate that the same be investigated by the competent authority during the course of investigation pursuant to an FIR, which shall be registered without naming any suspect...

Considering the overall factual background of the case and the aforesaid ratio, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued for registration of an F.I.R. against an unknown person and the further investigation is entrusted to an independent officer. Since the investigation has already been conducted by the SIT headed by the ACP, it would be appropriate to entrust the further investigation to an independent agency/officer so as to ensure that all concerned, including the relatives of the deceased, are fully assured that the investigation is being conducted fairly, independently, expeditiously and without being influenced by any individual. Accordingly, the investigation shall be carried out under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime, who shall ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law and with due promptitude," the court directed

It was alleged that on 24.03.2023, a 7 member CBI team, along with the two independent witnesses, left for Rajkot in two different Government vehicles. The officers forming part of the said CBI team were Dy.S.P. Sandeep Bhadoria, Inspector Himanshu Shah, Inspector J.C. Chaudhary, Constable Bharatsinh Zala, Constable Vikramsinh Makwana, Driver Constable Dinesh C. Thakkar and Driver-Constable P.J. Jadeja.

At around 11:00 a.m., upon reaching Rajkot, they contacted the complainant Ketan Balashankar Trivedi, Marketing Head of Austin Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd., who had filed a complaint alleging that the deceased had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,00,000 for performing his official duty and for obtaining licence required for saving customs duty.

When the deceased was arrested at his office pursuant to trap proceedings, it was claimed that as per Constable Bharatsinh Zala the deceased had jumped out of the window. When taken to the Hospital, the deceased was declared dead.

On 26.03.2023 the Police Commissioner constituted a SIT in connection with the inquiry initiated under Section 174 CrPC regarding alleged accidental death of the officer.

On the same day, the deceased's son forwarded a complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Rajkot, requesting registration of a complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 389 and 34 IPC in connection with the custodial death of his father.

It was alleged by the son in his complaint that during the raid at the deceased's residence, a conversation regarding issuance of threats to implicate the son in a false FIR, in the event of non-cooperation, including an FIR under the NDPS Act, had been recorded by the son on his mobile phone. A request was also made for forensic examination of the phone. It was further alleged that his father had been falsely implicated in the ACB case at the instance of a powerful complainant and that, considering the physique and size of the father, there was no possibility of his having jumped from the window.

The SIT conducted an investigation in connection the accidental death case by preparing the inquest panchnama, obtaining the FSL opinion regarding the death of the deceased, recording the statements of the employees who were present in the office, conducting videography, preparing a reconstruction panchnama and recording the statements of the neighbours of the deceased. The investigation concluded that that proper care had not been taken by the CBI officers while conducting the post-trap panchnama, however it was also opined that no involvement of the CBI officers was found in the commission of suicide by the deceased.

The judicial inquiry under the Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that the CBI officers had neither caused any harm nor inflicted any injury upon the deceased and that they had acted in accordance with the Rules.

Aggrieved by the alleged conduct of the police authority in not registering an FIR despite the allegations made in relation to the custodial death of the deceased, the family of the deceased moved the high court.

The court directed that a report be filed before the court within 3 months and disposed of the plea.