The Supreme Court today ordered the registration of a First Information Report and a Special Investigation Team probe into the death of a man alleged to have died in the custody of Gujarat police after he was booked in a cow slaughter case. The man's son claims that he died due to the consumption of 100 anti-diabetes pills and relies on a dying declaration.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the direction, after hearing Senior Advocate IH Syed for petitioner (the man's son). At the petitioner's request, the bench further ordered the Commissioner of Police to assess the threat perception and take appropriate action for the protection of the petitioner.

The Court directed that the FIR to be investigated by the SIT be registered initially without naming any suspect. The same shall be pursued from the angle of unnatural death, in the context of relevant provisions. A final report shall be submitted by the SIT before the jurisdictional Magistrate as early as possible and preferably within 3 months.

It further gave liberty to the petitioner to prefer a protest petition, or seek further investigation, if he is dissatisfied with the SIT probe. "He is the son. Let his conscience be satisfied", Justice Bagchi said to ASG SV Raju (for Gujarat government).

To recap, the petitioner initially approached the Gujarat High Court, alleging that on May 19, his father was taken for medical treatment to Sola Civil Hospital, but due to the unavailability of ICU beds, they were referred to another hospital. When the relatives took him to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, the petitioner's father died after a few hours.

As per reports, the deceased was arrested on May 18 in an FIR lodged under BNS, the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The petitioner alleged that during police custody, the deceased was subjected to physical assault and administered unidentified substances.

On May 20, an inquest proceeding was conducted by SDM-cum-Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad City (West) between 16:05 hours and 16:40 hours. Further, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ahmedabad Rural in Mirzapur was also informed regarding the death of the deceased while in custody.

The petitioner contended that medico-legal records indicated that the incident occurred at Vejalpur Police Station and contained a recommendation for postmortem examination, which according to the petitioner, disclosed the commissioner of cognizable offence warranting immediate registration of an FIR.

The High Court however denied immediate registration of FIR, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue other remedies under the BNSS. In doing so, the court observed that while Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh judgment mandates registration of an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, it does not provide a separate mechanism if police refuses to lodge an FIR nor there is a mandate provided that on failure of lodging an FIR the next of kin can directly invoke Article 226 jurisdiction of the high court.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate IH Syed, on his behalf, contended that the deceased was picked up by the police on May 16 and died within 4 days of police custody on May 20. He relied on a dying declaration recorded on video and alleged that the state was trying to protect the police officials.

On being questioned about the medico-legal report, Syed informed that the deceased was reported to have consumed 100 diabetes pills (even though he was in police custody). "How a person can consume 100 tablets in police custody?" he questioned.

Hearing him, the CJI posed to ASG Raju that in such cases, where there is suspicion of unnatural death, FIR can initially be registered and conclusions drawn after investigation. Notably, the CJI also commented that citing Lalita Kumari case to get an FIR registered has become a "fashion".

"Lalita Kumari, the way people are [citing]...it has become a fashion. You make a complaint against anybody on the earth and say that Lalita Kumari says that [register FIR]. That is not the scope, that is not the import of the judgment."

The ASG, on his part, submitted that whether the deceased had taken 100 pills was still under question as the viscera report was not yet available. This was rather the version presented by the petitioner to the doctors.

When Justice Bagchi questioned the injuries on the deceased's body (including a fracture), the ASG explained that the same occurred when the doctors tried to revive him by putting pressure on chest. "Very unlikely", replied an unconvinced Justice Bagchi.

The petition has been filed by AoR Varinder Kumar Sharma.

Case Title :TOFIK SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. SLP(Crl) No. 11532/2026