Jharkhand High Court Orders Probe and ₹1.5 Lakh Compensation in Alleged Custodial Thrashing of JLKM Leader
Introduction
In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards against custodial violence, the Jharkhand High Court has ordered a comprehensive probe and directed the immediate payment of ₹1.5 lakh as compensation to Jharkhand Loktantrik Krantikari Morcha (JLKM) leader Tarun Kumar Mahato, who was allegedly subjected to custodial thrashing by the police. The Court emphasised individual accountability of erring police officials, reinforcing the principle that custodial torture is a grave violation of fundamental rights.
Background of the Case
Arrest and Alleged Custodial Torture
Date of Arrest: Night of November 28
Police Station: Ichagarh Police Station, Seraikela-Kharsawan district
Allegation: Severe physical assault while in police custody
Reason for Arrest: Dispute related to alleged illegal mining and transportation of sand
Following his arrest, Tarun Kumar Mahato reportedly sustained serious injuries and has since been undergoing treatment at Seraikela Sadar Hospital.
Complaint Triggering High Court Intervention
Letter to Constitutional Authorities
The High Court took suo motu cognisance of a complaint letter dated December 5, sent by:
Bhanumati Mahato, wife of the victim
Addressed to:
President of India Droupadi Murmu
Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant
Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court
The complaint detailed allegations of custodial torture, prompting immediate judicial scrutiny.
High Court Proceedings and Directions
Bench Composition
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising:
Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Justice Rajesh Shankar
Key Orders Passed by the Court
The High Court issued the following directions:
Immediate compensation of ₹1.5 lakh to Tarun Kumar Mahato
Amount to be recovered from erring police officials
State DGP directed to file a detailed reply within four weeks
Medical examination of Mahato ordered through the Director of State Health Services
Medical report to be submitted at the next hearing on January 7
Physical appearance of the DGP and SP directed before the Court
A comprehensive investigation ordered into custodial thrashing allegations
The Court stressed that custodial violence cannot be shielded by institutional silence and must result in personal liability.
Investigation Initiated Pursuant to Court Order
Police Probe Status
Investigating Officer: Kolhan DIG Anuranjan Kisphotta
Statements of police personnel involved have been recorded
Statement of Bhanumati Mahato could not be recorded due to her absence
State DGP Tadasha Mishra and SP Mukesh Lunayat have already appeared before the High Court
Political and Public Reaction
Statement by JLKM Leadership
JLKM Chief and Dumri MLA Jairam Mahato, accompanied by senior leader Devendra Mahato, alleged:
Police denied them entry into Seraikela Sadar Hospital
Permission was refused citing Mahato’s judicial custody
Raised suspicion regarding:
Circumstances of arrest
Alleged police involvement in illegal mining and sand transportation
He expressed confidence in the judiciary and demanded strict action against guilty officials.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Custodial torture constitutes a direct violation of Article 21
The Supreme Court has consistently held that:
The right to life includes dignity, bodily integrity, and freedom from torture
Article 22 – Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Mandates safeguards during arrest and detention
Any physical abuse in custody violates procedural and substantive due process
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Police officials are not above the law
Selective violence or abuse of power violates equal protection guarantees
Statutory Provisions Applicable
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Potential offences include:
Section 323 – Voluntarily causing hurt
Section 330 – Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession
Section 331 – Grievous hurt to extort confession
Section 342 – Wrongful confinement
Section 166 – Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Section 41 & 41A – Safeguards during arrest
Section 54 – Medical examination of arrested persons
Section 176(1A) – Mandatory judicial inquiry in custodial violence cases
Judicial Precedents on Custodial Violence
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Laid down mandatory arrest and detention guidelines
Recognised custodial torture as a civil and constitutional wrong
Allowed compensation as a public law remedy
Nilabati Behera v. State of Odisha (1993)
Held that compensation can be awarded for custodial violence
Such compensation does not bar criminal prosecution of offenders
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
Established the principle of monetary compensation for illegal detention
Recognised public law damages under Article 21
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Emphasised police accountability and institutional reforms
Reinforced responsibility of senior police leadership
Significance of the High Court’s Order
Why This Ruling Matters
Reinforces zero tolerance for custodial torture
Establishes personal liability of police officials
Strengthens the role of constitutional courts as protectors of civil liberties
Sends a strong deterrent message to law enforcement agencies
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court’s intervention underscores that custodial violence strikes at the heart of constitutional governance. By ordering compensation, a medical probe, and fixing personal accountability, the Court has reaffirmed that the rule of law does not end at the doors of police custody.
The outcome of the ongoing investigation will be closely watched, as it carries broader implications for police accountability, human rights enforcement, and constitutional discipline in India.

Comments
Post a Comment