Telangana HC Orders SIT Probe After Rajasthan Farmer's Name Missing From FIR He Was Allegedly Detained Under
Justice N. Tukaramji found a critical inconsistency: the petitioner's name did not appear in the FIR, remand report, or charge sheet, yet police communications referred to him — lending prima facie support to his claim of unlawful detention.
The High Court for the State of Telangana has directed the Director General of Police to register a fresh FIR based on a Rajasthan agriculturist's allegations of illegal detention, custodial coercion, and forced execution of a General Power of Attorney, and to entrust the investigation to a Special Investigation Team or CB-CID within four weeks. Justice N. Tukaramji, sitting singly at Hyderabad, allowed Writ Petition No.13816 of 2018 filed by Jogaram Lohar on 4 May 2026, after finding that the records of Crime No.44 of 2018 did not reflect the petitioner's name in the FIR, remand report, or charge sheet — even though police communications referred to him. That gap, the court held, warranted an independent and impartial investigation rather than reliance on the version offered by the respondent police.
What the Petitioner Alleged
Jogaram Lohar describes himself as an agriculturist and permanent resident of Rajasthan with no commercial connection to Hyderabad. According to his petition, on 28 February 2018, officials attached to Police Station, Banjara Hills, acting together with private individuals, apprehended him without authority of law and demanded delivery of 40 kilograms of silver. He was then, he says, forcibly transported to Rajasthan and confined at Jain Bhavan, where he was subjected to custodial violence and intimidation.
On 1 March 2018, at the Bhinmal Court Complex in Rajasthan, Lohar alleges he was compelled under duress to execute documents that resulted in a fabricated General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.13. His original title documents for agricultural land of 3 acres in Jalore District were, he says, unlawfully seized at the same time.
A second period of detention is also alleged: between 14 March 2018 and 16 March 2018, Lohar claims he was confined at Pranav Lodge, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, and subjected to further threats. He also contends that FIR No.44 of 2018, registered against him under Sections 420, 406, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was a false case filed in collusion with private respondents to harass and coerce him.
Through counsel M/s. A.L. Raju, the petitioner argued that these acts violated his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the police had not followed the mandatory safeguards against custodial abuse laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 — including requirements of an arrest memo, medical examination, and intimation to relatives.
The Respondents' Counter-Position
The State and the respondent police, represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, took the position that the writ petition was misconceived and filed to challenge lawful police action. They submitted that Crime No.44 of 2018 was registered on a complaint by respondent No.10 under Sections 406, 420, and 379 IPC, and that the investigation disclosed prima facie involvement of the petitioner and others in cheating, criminal breach of trust, and theft of silver ornaments.
The respondents further submitted that the accused were arrested in compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, produced before the competent Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody. A charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on file as C.C. No.1827 of 2018 by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The respondents also pointed out that the parties had entered into a compromise under Section 320 CrPC and settled the matter before a Lok Adalat on 14 July 2018.
All allegations of illegal detention, custodial violence, and coercion were denied as baseless, belated, and afterthoughts. The respondents emphasised that no complaint had been made by the petitioner at the time of remand or at any earlier stage, and argued that the writ petition was not maintainable given the concluded criminal proceedings.
The Inconsistency That Decided the Case
Justice Tukaramji examined the complaint, the FIR, and the records of Crime No.44 of 2018. The court found that the dispute originated from a commercial transaction involving the supply of silver ornaments, with the complainant alleging inducement, failure to discharge financial obligations, and theft of approximately 60 kilograms of silver ornaments.
Two competing narratives were identified: the petitioner's account of illegal detention, custodial torture, and coercion; and the respondents' account of lawful investigation arising from a commercial dispute that ended in criminal proceedings and settlement.
The court then identified the central problem with the respondents' version. The records of Crime No.44 of 2018 — the FIR, the remand report, and the charge sheet — did not reflect the petitioner's name. Yet certain police communications did refer to him. The court observed that this lent prima facie support to Lohar's claim that he was apprehended despite not being formally arrayed as an accused.
“This inconsistency raises serious concerns regarding the legality of the petitioner's alleged detention.” If the petitioner was not formally shown as an accused, his production before the Magistrate would not arise. The respondents' version, the court held, appeared incongruent with the record and warranted closer scrutiny.
The court acknowledged that allegations relating to coercion, execution of the GPA, and seizure of documents involved disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction. But the inconsistencies in the respondents' stand and the prima facie material on record made an independent investigation necessary.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court's holding in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa that violation of Article 21 by State actors gives rise to a public law remedy, including compensation, affirming the constitutional basis for the court's intervention.
Directions Issued
Justice Tukaramji allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
The Director General of Police is directed to cause registration of a crime or FIR based on the petitioner's averments and to entrust the investigation to a Special Investigation Team or CB-CID within four weeks of the order dated 4 May 2026.
The SIT or CB-CID is to conduct a fair, impartial, and independent investigation in accordance with law, and is to complete the investigation expeditiously, preferably within six months.
The investigating agency is required to submit periodic status reports before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Upon submission of the final result, the jurisdictional Magistrate is to proceed in accordance with law.
Order
Writ Petition No.13816 of 2018 was allowed on 4 May 2026 with the directions set out above. No order as to costs was made. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.