Delhi court orders CBI inquiry into custodial torture in fake drug probe

New Delhi,UPDATED: Jul 7, 2026 20:06 IST

A Delhi court on Tuesday directed the CBI to conduct a comprehensive, fair and impartial inquiry into allegations that an accused was tortured in custody in a Rs 3-crore bribery case linked to the agency's probe into a fake drug manufacturing racket.

Calling custodial violence "one of the gravest assaults on the rule of law", the court said such allegations against officers of the country's premier investigating agency could not be left unanswered. It also said strict criminal as well as departmental action must follow if the inquiry finds any offence or misconduct.

Special Judge Sushant Changotra was hearing a plea filed by co-accused Prabhat Kumar (Kapoor) through advocate Prateek Som. Kumar alleged that he was severely beaten during CBI custody from June 16 to 22, causing serious injuries to his left ear and left thigh.

The court said medico-legal cases dated June 19 and June 20 prima facie showed that Kumar suffered physical injuries while he was in the exclusive custody of CBI officials.

The June 19 record noted a contusion on the left thigh, while the June 20 record showed blood clots and a bulge, or haematoma, in the left ear. The court said, "These are not vague or bald allegations but are prima facie supported by contemporaneous medical records prepared by government doctors during the subsistence of police custody."

It added that the CBI had offered "absolutely no explanation whatsoever" for the injuries, and that it was not even the agency's case that they were self-inflicted or accidental.

The court said the unexplained injuries, along with the admitted movement of the accused to another police station during police custody and the contemporaneous medical evidence, gave substantial prima facie support to the allegations of custodial violence.

"Custodial violence is one of the gravest assaults on the rule of law. It strikes at the very foundation of a constitutional democracy founded upon the guarantee of life, liberty and human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution," the judge said.

The judge said no investigating agency, regardless of the allegations under probe, had any licence to use physical violence, coercion or torture during interrogation. He said the legitimacy of a criminal investigation lay in its fairness and legality, not in its ability to extract information through fear or force.

The court also said, "The police or any investigating agency cannot be permitted to assume the dual role of investigator and punisher. Punishment for any criminal act can only be imposed by a court of law after following the due process of law, and departure from this fundamental principle amounts to a direct affront to the rule of law."

Judge Changotra said the court could not remain a silent spectator when medical evidence showed injuries sustained by an accused in the custody of a premier investigating agency.

"If allegations of custodial violence against officers of an investigating agency are ignored or casually brushed aside, it would amount to judicial indifference towards a serious violation of constitutional rights and could undermine public faith in the administration of criminal justice," he said. He added, "The aforementioned facts prima facie disclose a deeply disturbing and sordid state of affairs..."

Saying the matter should be examined "at the highest level within the CBI", the court directed the jail superintendent concerned to have Kumar medically examined at Safdarjung Hospital and ensure necessary treatment.

It ordered that "a comprehensive, fair and impartial inquiry be conducted into the allegations of custodial violence levelled by accused Prabhat Kumar" and said the exercise should not stop at identifying the officials who allegedly caused the injuries.

The inquiry must also examine the role, responsibility and accountability of all supervisory officers under whose command and control Kumar remained during police custody, including whether any act of commission, omission, acquiescence or failure of supervision facilitated or failed to prevent the alleged violence.

The court said it was desirable that the inquiry be conducted by an officer, preferably a senior officer, unconnected with the present investigation so that its fairness and impartiality inspire confidence. It added that if the inquiry reveals any criminal offence or departmental misconduct, appropriate proceedings should be started strictly in accordance with law against the officials concerned.

A copy of the order has been sent to the CBI Director for necessary action, and the court has sought a report on the action taken within two weeks.

- Ends