MP High Court Refuses Protection to Policemen Accused in Custodial Death Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that police officers accused of custodial violence and a custodial death cannot avoid prosecution by claiming that their actions were performed in the discharge of official duty. The Court ruled that prior government sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not required where the alleged acts have no reasonable connection with lawful police functions.

Justice Gajendra Singh dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by two police constables and a police inspector who challenged a trial court order refusing to grant them statutory protection from prosecution.

The case arose from the death of 24-year-old Pankaj Vaishnav, a Class-IV court employee, who died while in police custody at MIG Police Station, Indore, on December 19, 2015. According to the prosecution, Vaishnav was brought to the police station for questioning in connection with a scooter theft case and later died while in custody.

An inquiry conducted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 176 CrPC concluded that the death amounted to culpable homicide. Following a CID investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused officers for offences including abetment of suicide, wrongful confinement, and fabrication of records.

Before the High Court, the police personnel argued that their actions were connected with investigation duties and therefore could not be prosecuted without prior sanction from the government. They relied on Supreme Court decisions holding that public servants are entitled to protection when there is a reasonable nexus between the alleged act and the performance of official duties.

The State opposed the plea, contending that illegal detention, custodial assault, and attempts to conceal the incident could not be regarded as legitimate police functions.

The Court examined the record and noted that no station diary entry had been made regarding Vaishnav's detention. It also referred to the AIIMS Bhopal medical report, which recorded an ante-mortem injury on the deceased's body. The investigation further alleged that Vaishnav was physically assaulted, harassed during interrogation, and that his family members were not informed about his detention. The officers were also accused of making false records and attempting to suppress the incident after his death.

While acknowledging Supreme Court rulings that extend protection to acts performed in purported discharge of official duty, the Court emphasized that the decisive test is whether the alleged conduct has a reasonable nexus with official functions.

The Court observed that this was not a case involving use of force during law-and-order duties or crowd control. Rather, the allegations concerned violence against a person already in police custody, followed by efforts to cover up the incident.

The Bench held that custodial violence cannot be treated as part of official duty and therefore does not attract the protection of prior sanction.

Referring to Supreme Court observations in Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2005), the Court reiterated that custodial deaths are among the gravest violations of human rights and pose a serious threat to the rule of law.

Concluding that the "reasonable nexus" test was not satisfied, the High Court upheld the trial court's order and dismissed the revision petition.

Case: Rajkumar Dwivedi & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Judge: Justice Gajendra Singh

Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:15546Decision Date: 16 June 2026.