Karnataka High Court Issues Notice Over Custodial Death Of 24-Year-Old, But Refuses To Issue Blanket Directions In PIL Seeking Protocol

Sebin James

8 April 2026 9:26 PM IST

  • Patna High Court, Bihar Police Department, Protecting, Police Personnel, Custodial Death, Rejects, Pre-Arrest Bail, denied, policeman, Surrender, Justice Sandeep Kumar,
    Listen to this Article

    The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 08), refused to issue notice regarding the formulation of a comprehensive protocol to prevent custodial torture in a PIL filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties.

    However, the court has issued a limited notice to the State and Police department, including the DGP, over the alleged custodial death of 24-year-old Darshan in November 2025.

    The bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha held that the notice issued will be limited to the death of the youngster in Crime No.999/2025 filed at Mandanayakanahalli Police Station.

    “We are only issuing notice on the specific case investigation, not issuing notice on other prayers,” the Court orally remarked.

    The matter will be heard on July 15 now.

    “There are several decisions on your prayer for preventing custodial deaths…”, the division bench orally said when the matter came up first.

    The petitioners emphasised that the relief was specifically sought for in respect of custodial torture and not custodial deaths per se.

    The court answered that even that aspect has been covered in many precedents.

    The petitioners further submitted that there has not yet been an examination of whether the D.K Basu guidelines were sufficient to prevent custodial torture. Therefore, the petitioners pressed for a comprehensive protocol on procedure to prevent such deaths.

    “…There is a procedure to be followed when you arrest a person. If in some cases it gets violated, in those specific cases, it can be done…but we can't give blanket directions. Eventually, a decision like this would seem to proceed like there is some limit to torture…”, the court orally observed.

    “…Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. As the investigation conducted in Crime No. 999/2025 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station is concerned, notice is issued”, the court ordered after hearing initial submissions.

    The matter has now been posted for further hearing for the State to respond on the status of the investigation into Darshan's custodial death.

    According to the petition, the deceased was brutally tortured after the Viveka Nagar Police detained him. The police nabbed Darshan by alleging that the victim, while sitting outside his house, wielded a machete to scare Zomato employees. Subsequently, the Sonenahalli resident succumbed to death at a rehabilitation centre in November, 2025.

    The plea before the High Court stated that the post-mortem report indicated grievous injuries all over Darshan's body. Before the High Court, the petitioners, in the public interest, submitted that no police officials have been arrested so far, even in the midst of a CID wing investigation. According to the plea, the family of the victim has been threatened by highly influential stakeholders, including police officers, to withdraw their complaint in the matter.

    The prayers sought by the petitioners included the constitution of a committee chaired by a Retired High Court Judge which would monitor the investigations into custodial deaths over the past five years. Additionally, the petitioners asked for formulating a comprehensive protocol for the prevention of custodial torture and deaths and initiating strict action against erring officials. The PIL also requested a direction to ensure that the CCTV cameras in all police stations across the state are fully functional to nab the erring officials.

    Case specifically, the plea also sought to constitute a Special Investigation Team to take over the investigation of Darshan's death and to provide compensation of Rs 50 lakhs to his legal heirs.

    Case Title: People's Union for Civil Liberties Karnataka & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

    Case No.: WP No. 9499/2026 (PIL)

    Next Story