Safiya Malik

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Single Bench of Justice Kirti Singh, has issued a series of directives following serious allegations of custodial torture. The Court ordered the constitution of a Medical Board at PGIMER, Chandigarh to conduct an independent and comprehensive examination of the petitioner. Additionally, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, has been directed to file an affidavit providing a chronological, factual, and impartial account of the events. The matter is adjourned to 29.04.2025 for further proceedings.

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner seeking protection of life and liberty, setting aside of arrest, declaration of proceedings arising from FIR No. 83 dated 08.04.2025 as non-est in law, and transfer of investigation to an independent agency. The FIR in question pertains to offences registered under Sections 296, 74, 308(2), and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) along with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.

Also Read: Arbitral tribunal can proceed against party though not served with Section 21 notice or named in Section 11 application as consent is key to jurisdiction : Supreme Court

The petitioner, according to submissions made by counsel, was allegedly abducted by unknown officials on 07.04.2025 around 7:00 PM from outside the Sohana Gurudwara. He was reportedly taken to Police Station Saneta and subjected to severe custodial torture, including being administered electric shocks. The petition asserts that during this illegal detention, the petitioner was filmed in a nude state and the said video was later circulated.

The FIR was filed the next day on 08.04.2025, which the petitioner argues was part of a pre-planned sequence to fabricate charges and justify the prior illegal detention. Counsel argued that the petitioner was not presented before a magistrate in a timely manner and the medical examination conducted on the date of arrest was conducted in a perfunctory manner. It is submitted that the examination failed to report visible injuries sustained during the alleged custodial abuse.

On 11.04.2025, the learned trial Court while dismissing the application for extension of police remand recorded that "the medical examination conducted of the accused on 08.04.2025 i.e. the date of arrest... is silent with regard to any of the injuries of the accused which are visible to the naked eye." The Court declined the request for further remand and ordered judicial custody. It further directed the SHO/IO to get the injuries examined before lodging the petitioner in jail and to move an application to the SMO, Civil Hospital, Phase-6, SAS Nagar, for the constitution of a medical board.

Despite this directive, the petitioner alleges he was returned to the police station rather than being examined by the medical board. It is further alleged that he was subjected to threats concerning the safety of his family should he insist on undergoing medical examination. Subsequently, on 12.04.2025, the petitioner was taken to Civil Hospital and allegedly forced to sign a refusal for medical examination.

It is also submitted that the petitioner was not provided a copy of the arrest memo, nor was he informed of the grounds of arrest. These allegations, according to the petition, amount to violations of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS. Counsel placed reliance on precedents laid down in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 269 and Prabir Purakayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 8 SCC 254. A representation regarding these issues was addressed to the Director General of Police, Punjab on 16.04.2025.

The arrest was challenged before the Duty Magistrate; however, the application was dismissed on 12.04.2025. The petitioner contended that the dismissal was done in a mechanical manner without consideration of the relevant facts and constitutional safeguards.

The Court recorded the need for a thorough and independent response from the authorities involved, noting that the allegations in the petition raised serious issues relating to personal liberty and custodial conduct. Justice Kirti Singh stated that the circumstances as narrated necessitate detailed factual clarification and an official medical evaluation of the petitioner.

The order states, "The present case involves allegations of gross misconduct of the acting officials and in the opinion of this Court, requires a detailed response qua the chain of events as they unfolded in actuality as also qua the alleged custodial torture that the petitioner was allegedly subjected to."

It was also observed that the nature of the petition and the specific allegations related to coercion, illegal detention, lack of due process, and possible tampering with medical examination protocols cannot be dismissed without judicial review and administrative response. The Court stated the importance of examining the petitioner by competent medical experts under a neutral setting to assess any injuries consistent with the allegations.

Justice Kirti Singh also recorded that "serious allegations as they prima facie appear" required judicial directions both in medical and administrative terms. The Court refrained from passing final observations but clearly directed preservation and examination of the petitioner's medical condition as of 24.04.2025.

The directives from the trial court were also taken into account by the High Court, especially the passage instructing the SHO/IO to seek a medical board's opinion from Civil Hospital, Phase-6. However, the subsequent developments as alleged in the petition—that the medical examination was avoided through intimidation and procedural evasion—prompted the Court to involve PGIMER, Chandigarh for an independent examination.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines for Appointment of Public Prosecutors : “Primacy to the Opinion of the District Judge Is Mandatory”

The Court passed the following directives in response to the submissions:

1. "The Senior Superintendent of the Police, Mohali is directed to do the needful and submit a proper and non-partisan response by way of an affidavit in the instant case."

2. "Given the serious allegations as they prima facie appear, it is kindly asked of the Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh to constitute a Medical Board for 24.04.2025 to thoroughly examine the petitioner for any bodily injuries stated to be inflicted on his person and submit a report qua the same prior to the next date of hearing."

3. "The Superintendent of District Jail, Rupnagar, is directed to ensure that the petitioner is produced before the Medical Board constituted by PGIMER, Chandigarh on 24.04.2025."

4. The matter is adjourned to 29.04.2025 for the affidavit of the SSP, Mohali and the report of the Medical Board.

5. Copies of the order were directed to be sent to the concerned authorities and the Standing Counsel for PGIMER for immediate compliance.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bharat Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

Case Title: Rohani alias Roni v. State of Punjab and Others

Case Number: CRWP-3912-2025

Bench: Justice Kirti Singh

[Read/Download order]