Akash & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2026

The petition was filed by two persons alleging illegal detention, custodial assault, torture and extortion by police officials.

The allegations arose in connection with an investigation into a theft case registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi.

The petitioners claimed that they were initially detained at the police station for approximately six hours.

They alleged that police officials demanded ₹25,000 from them and allowed them to leave after the amount was paid.

According to the petitioners, they were subsequently called to the police station again.

They alleged that they were pressured to confess to involvement in the theft.

One petitioner alleged that he was physically assaulted after refusing to confess.

The petitioners contended that they had not been named as accused in the original FIR.

They argued that they had been called to the police station as witnesses under Section 179 BNSS.

The Delhi Police disputed this contention and submitted that the concerned petitioner was being proceeded against as an accused/suspect, rather than merely as a witness.

The police relied upon a subsequent handwritten complaint in which suspicion had allegedly been expressed against the petitioner.

The petitioners relied upon an MLC of one petitioner, which recorded a history of physical assault at Police Station Jyoti Nagar.

The MLC also recorded tenderness and swelling over different parts of the body.

The Court noted that the MLC constituted contemporaneous medical material showing that the petitioner had been examined and injuries had been noticed.

However, the history recorded in the MLC was based upon the petitioner's own account and did not identify the police official allegedly responsible for causing the injuries.

No corresponding MLC of the other petitioner was produced despite the allegation that both had been assaulted.

The petitioners also relied upon a PCR call allegedly made in connection with the incident.

However, the actual PCR call record was not placed before the Court, making it impossible to independently determine its timing and circumstances.

There was also no independent evidence establishing that ₹25,000 had actually been demanded and paid to the police officials.

The subsequent complaints submitted by the petitioners essentially repeated their allegations but did not independently corroborate them.

The Court therefore examined whether the material on record was sufficient to establish custodial violence or illegal detention by the specific police officials concerned.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.

The Court made it clear that no person, whether a witness or an accused, can be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in police custody.

The Court reiterated that the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal are binding upon police officials.

At the same time, the Court held that a finding of custodial violence against specific police officials cannot be based merely upon disputed allegations.

Before directing departmental action or granting compensation, there must be prima facie supporting material connecting the concerned officials with the alleged misconduct.

The Court held that the fact that the petitioners were not named in the original FIR did not establish that they had necessarily been called to the police station only as witnesses.

The FIR had initially been registered against unknown persons, and therefore the investigation could subsequently focus on persons who came under suspicion.

The Court held that the real question was not simply the status in which the petitioners were summoned, but whether the available material established custodial assault.

The MLC of one petitioner was recognised as contemporaneous medical evidence showing that injuries had been noticed.

However, the history of assault recorded in the MLC was based on the petitioner's own statement and did not identify the police officials responsible.

No independent or corroborative evidence connected the concerned police officials with those injuries.

The absence of the second petitioner's MLC was also considered significant.

The Court found that the PCR call record itself had not been produced, preventing independent verification of its timing and circumstances.

There was also no independent material establishing the alleged ₹25,000 payment.

The subsequent complaints merely repeated the petitioners' version and could not, by themselves, establish the allegations.

On the material available, the Court was therefore unable to conclude that the police officials had subjected the petitioners to illegal detention or custodial torture.

The petition was consequently dismissed.

The judgment balances two important principles: absolute protection against custodial torture and the requirement of reliable material before individual police officers are held responsible.

The Court did not dilute the constitutional protection against custodial violence.

Instead, it emphasised that serious allegations against identifiable police officials must be supported by material capable of establishing a prima facie connection.

The judgment distinguishes between evidence showing that an injury existed and evidence establishing who caused that injury.

The MLC was therefore relevant but insufficient, by itself, to establish liability of the particular police officials.

This distinction is important because custodial-violence proceedings may result in departmental action and monetary compensation against individual officials.

The Court also rejected the argument that absence of a person's name from the original FIR automatically proves that the person was summoned merely as a witness.

Since the original FIR was against unknown persons, the investigation could subsequently identify suspects.

The Court therefore focused on the substance of the allegations and supporting material, rather than the label attached to the petitioners' status.

The case demonstrates the evidentiary importance of medical records, PCR records, independent witnesses and documentary evidence in allegations of custodial assault.

A medical examination shortly after an alleged assault can provide important contemporaneous evidence, but the Court may still require material connecting the injuries to the specific alleged perpetrators.

Similarly, a complaint repeating an earlier allegation does not necessarily constitute independent corroboration of that allegation.

The Court's approach reflects the principle that judicial findings of custodial violence must be based on evidence rather than disputed assertions alone.

The decision also reinforces that the D.K. Basu safeguards remain binding, even though the petitioners in a particular case may ultimately fail to establish that those safeguards were violated by particular officials.

The judgment therefore does not hold that allegations of custodial torture require an impossible standard of proof; rather, it requires prima facie material sufficient to connect the alleged misconduct with the officials against whom action is sought.

Ultimately, because the available material did not sufficiently establish illegal detention, custodial assault or extortion by the concerned officials, the High Court declined to grant the requested relief.