New Delhi: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a plea seeking a criminal case against police officials in connection with a 2013 custodial death in Faridabad, Haryana.
Anand Rai Kaushik moved the apex court through advocate Rahul Gupta. Kaushik has challenged the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in November last year. In an order passed on April 15, 2024, a bench comprising justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale said issue notice returnable on July 26, 2024. The bench has sought response from the state government and director general of police. Rai claimed that his brother, Satender Kaushik, died in the custody of the NIT police station in Faridabad on July 25, 2013.
The petitioner has contended that without any FIR, his brother was taken into custody by police on the complaint of a hotel manager over alleged non-payment of bill. The police have claimed that the victim died after hanging himself from a window of a toilet in the police station.
The high court did not entertain Rai’s plea for registration of a criminal case and transfer of investigation to either the CBI or any other probe agency.
The plea, filed in the apex court, contended that the high court erred on facts as well as law in dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for directing investigation in the matter when admittedly it was a custodial death.
It said the high court ought to have seen that the death had taken place in police custody and a proper investigation was not conducted.
The high court, in its order, had noted that on March 11, 2015, an order was passed by a co-ordinate bench after perusing the judicial enquiry report, all the relevant daily diary reports of the police station and the postmortem report prepared by a board of doctors. The high court had noted that it was apparent that there was no foul play in the present case.
The high court had observed that the co-ordinate bench had taken a lenient view and directed for payment of compensation as the death had occurred in police custody.
However, the petitioner declined to accept the compensation amount from the District Legal Service Authority, Faridabad, and also from the National Human Rights Commission.
