Supreme Court hands custodial death probe to CBI, orders Rs 25 lakh interim compensation
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered a CBI case into a Chhattisgarh custodial death after finding the State covered up injuries and awarded meagre compensation.
The Supreme Court entrusted the Central Bureau of Investigation with probing the custodial death of Shravan Suryavanshi, a Chhattisgarh man who died in State custody with multiple injuries, after finding that senior State officers had tried to cover up the circumstances of his death. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta acted on a special leave petition filed by the deceased’s wife and daughters, who challenged the High Court’s award of only Rs 1 lakh compensation and its failure to direct any investigation. The Court, by order dated 12 August 2026, directed the Director, CBI, to register a regular criminal case, ordered payment of Rs 25 lakh interim compensation, and held that the explanations offered by top State officials were false and reprehensible. The final quantum of compensation is yet to be decided.
How the case reached the Court
Shravan Suryavanshi @ Sarvan Tamre was apprehended in connection with FIR No. 47 dated 18 January 2024 at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. The FIR alleged that he was found with three two-litre bottles containing raw Mahua liquor, a total of six litres valued at Rs 1,200.
He was arrested by a head constable and later lodged at Central Jail, Bilaspur. On 21 January 2024 he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, due to deteriorating health, and he died there on 22 January 2024 at about 6:00 a.m.
The post-mortem recorded multiple external injuries, including a laceration on the occipital scalp and contusions on the thigh and nape. The cause of death was recorded as cardio-respiratory arrest due to complications from a head injury caused by a hard and blunt object. The injuries were antemortem.
A judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC was assigned to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who submitted a report dated 22 July 2024 opining that the death appeared to have been caused by complications from the head injury.
The High Court’s order
When no action followed against those responsible and no compensation was paid, the legal heirs filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2024 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, seeking Rs 50 lakh compensation and action against the responsible officers.
By judgment dated 3 October 2024, the Division Bench held that Suryavanshi was subjected to custodial violence and died as a result. Even so, it awarded compensation of only Rs 1 lakh and did not direct registration of an FIR or an investigation into the custodial death.
What the Supreme Court found
On 28 July 2026, the Court recorded that the compensation appeared “completely inadequate” and that the State’s counter affidavit did not disclose steps taken on lodging an FIR. It directed the Director General of Police and Principal Secretary (Home) to appear.
On 4 August 2026, the Director General of Police, Director General (Prisons) and Principal Secretary (Home) joined by video conference. The Director General of Police claimed there was no occasion to register a criminal case because the inquiry report under Section 176 CrPC had not been received by the police.
The Court rejected this. It found the State had itself disclosed in its High Court reply that the inquiry had been instituted and its report awaited, and the report was on record when the High Court decided the writ petition. The Court called the police stance “patently false and wholly reprehensible.”
The Court also found an attempt to mislead the inquiry. The jail medical report recorded the cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration pneumonitis, with a diagnosis of alcoholic withdrawal and delirium tremens, and made no reference to the head injury or other injuries later noted in the post-mortem. The post-mortem report was placed on record for the first time only after the Court’s order of 28 July 2026.
Why the reasoning matters
The age of the injuries drove the Court’s concern. The occipital scalp laceration was opined to be within one day, and two contusions were 2 to 6 days old. The Court held that the possibility of the deceased sustaining these injuries across the custody period could not be ruled out.
On that footing, the facts warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation, which the State authorities “deliberately tried to cover up.” The Court described the stance of the senior officers as reflecting a disregard of the statutory procedure governing custodial deaths.
Order
The Court entrusted the investigation into the custodial death to the CBI. The Director, CBI, was directed to ensure registration of a regular criminal case, with the probe assigned to a senior officer and conducted expeditiously. The conduct of the State officials in failing to act on the judicial inquiry report is to be examined as part of the investigation, and all officials found responsible are to be prosecuted in accordance with law.
The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, was directed to transmit the complete records to the CBI through a special messenger within a week.
As an interim measure, the Court directed the State to pay Rs 25 lakh compensation into the bank account of petitioner No. 1, Lahra Bai Tamre, within four weeks, with the final quantum to be determined later. The Court noted that the State did not dispute the finding that the deceased was the sole breadwinner and died an unnatural death due to custodial violence.
The Investigating Officer’s report is to be placed before the Court on the next date. The matter was listed again on 13 October 2026.