The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Gujarat government to register a First Information Report and form a Special Investigation Team to probe the alleged custodial death of a 70-year-old man at the Vejalpur Police Station in Ahmedabad.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana ruled that an unnatural death in police custody requires an investigation when incriminating material is present. The court ordered the Special Investigation Team, led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police alongside two officers nominated by the Gujarat Director General of Police, to complete its inquiry and submit a final report to the jurisdictional magistrate within three months. Additionally, the court instructed the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner to evaluate security threats to the victim’s family and provide them with necessary protection.
Dying Declaration And Alleged Forced Medication
The case stems from the death of Zahiruddin Shaikh, who was arrested by Vejalpur Police on May 18 in connection with an alleged cow slaughter case. Shaikh was transferred to SVP Hospital after his health deteriorated in custody and died on May 19. While local police filed an Accidental Death case, Shaikh’s family maintained that he was tortured and fatally assaulted in custody.
According to the petition filed by Shaikh’s son, Tofik Shaikh, police officers forcibly administered 30 to 40 prescription diabetes tablets to the victim, causing a fatal overdose. The petition highlighted two dying declarations made by Shaikh—one recorded in hospital medico-legal records and another captured in two video recordings—in which he named specific police officers and described the physical assault. The family stated that police authorities ignored their repeated requests for an FIR and instead pressured them to settle the matter. Observing the evidence, the bench noted that the dying declarations presented compelling grounds pointing to an assault.
Rejection Of State Arguments
The top court rejected submissions from Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, who represented the state and requested a preliminary inquiry rather than the immediate registration of an FIR. The law officer stated that a magisterial inquiry was already in progress and noted that a five-doctor autopsy panel had found no physical injuries on the body.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate I. H. Syed argued that local police were shielding the accused officers and that the victim’s son was receiving threats. The bench concluded that a prima facie case existed for registering an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions without naming specific suspects at this initial stage. The court added that if the petitioner remains dissatisfied with the investigation’s outcome, he retains the right to submit a protest petition seeking further inquiry.
Prior High Court Proceedings
The Supreme Court intervention follows an appeal against a May 29 ruling by the Gujarat High Court, which had dismissed the family’s petition for an FIR on the grounds that statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita had to be exhausted first. While dismissing the plea, the High Court had expressed concern over legal constraints, describing it as ironic that procedural rules prevented direct enforcement of established precedents requiring mandatory FIR registration in cognizable offences.
The respondents listed in the petition included the State of Gujarat, the Inspector of Vejalpur Police Station, and the Ahmedabad Commissioner of Police.
