Can the Judiciary Stay Silent on Alleged Custodial Torture? Punjab & Haryana High Court Demands Answers in Shocking Mohali Case

In a disturbing case of alleged custodial brutality, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of severe allegations levelled against the Punjab Police, ordering an immediate response from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Mohali. The allegations include unlawful detention, physical torture involving electric shocks, and filming of the detainee in a state of complete nudity, which was purportedly shared without consent.

Justice Kirti Singh, presiding over the bench, termed the allegations as grave and deeply concerning. She emphasized that the matter involves not only a breach of legal process but also a potential violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Court directed the Director of PGIMER, Chandigarh, to constitute a specialized medical board to conduct a thorough and impartial medical examination of the petitioner. The report from this board is expected by April 29, the next scheduled hearing date.

Background of the Allegations

The petitioner, represented by advocates Mr. Bharat Bhandari, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Amandeep Singh, and Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking protection of life and liberty. The plea also sought to annul his arrest and the legal proceedings initiated thereafter, citing that they were retaliatory and malicious.

According to the petition, the incident began on the evening of April 7, 2025. The petitioner was allegedly abducted by unidentified individuals from outside a Gurudwara and subsequently detained at Saneta Police Station. During this period of unlawful confinement, it is claimed he was subjected to brutal custodial torture, including electric shocks. To compound the trauma, the petitioner asserts that he was stripped naked, filmed in that condition, and the videos were then circulated—raising serious concerns of both physical and psychological abuse, as well as a violation of privacy and dignity.

An FIR was later registered on April 8 under Sections 296, 74, 308(2), 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner contends that this was a premeditated move to cover up the custodial abuse and provide post-facto legal justification for the illegal detention.

Alleged Cover-Up and Intimidation

The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the initial medical examination ordered by the Trial Court on April 11 was either not conducted or was done in a perfunctory manner. Despite visible injuries noted by the court, the petitioner was allegedly not presented before the medical board constituted by the Civil Hospital’s Senior Medical Officer (SMO).

Instead, it is claimed that the police returned him to custody and threatened him and his family with dire consequences should he proceed with a formal medical examination. Under this coercion, the petitioner was allegedly forced to visit the Civil Hospital on April 12 and submit a fabricated written refusal for medical examination.

Moreover, the petitioner never received a copy of the arrest memo or the FIR, nor was he informed of the grounds for his arrest—violations that strike at the core of procedural safeguards enshrined in criminal jurisprudence.

Court’s Observations and Directions

Justice Kirti Singh’s observations left little doubt about the seriousness with which the Court views these allegations. She stated that the events, as presented, pointed to "gross misconduct" on the part of the police and required "a detailed response qua the chain of events as they unfolded in actuality as also qua the alleged custodial torture."

Accordingly, the SSP of Mohali has been directed to file a comprehensive affidavit, laying out a clear and unbiased version of the events. Additionally, the Court instructed PGIMER, Chandigarh, to conduct a full-fledged medical assessment of the petitioner’s injuries and submit a report ahead of the next hearing.

The State was represented by Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General of Punjab.

The Bigger Picture: A Reminder of Accountability

This case, Rohani alias Roni v. State of Punjab and Others, underscores the persisting concerns regarding custodial violence in India—an issue that has often been the subject of national and international condemnation. The High Court’s swift response and demand for transparency provide a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak narrative.

As the country continues to grapple with the need for stronger police reforms and better accountability mechanisms, this case serves as a critical reminder: justice delayed may not always be justice denied, but justice must be pursued relentlessly, especially when the very institutions meant to protect citizens are accused of violating their rights.

The matter is now posted for further hearing on April 29, 2025.