Patna High Court
Vikram Sihag vs The State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66363 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-487 Year-2024 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Vikram Sihag, Son of Pyarelal Sihag, R/o Nethwa, P.S.- Ramgarh
Shekhawati, District- Sikar, Rajasthan, presently posted as Sub Divisional
Police Officer, Phulwari Sharif-1
... ... Petitionee
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shriram, Son of Janki Singh, R/o Mohalla- Nepali Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar,
Patna.
3. The Bihar State Human Rights Commission through its Secretary Bailey
Road, Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the State : Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Subhash Patel, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 18-08-2025
Heard Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Md. Anzarul Haque, learned
APP for the State duly assisted by Mr. Subhash Patel, learned
counsel appearing for O.P. No.2.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'CrPC') to issue appropriate direction to the Investigating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
2/19
Officer of Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No.5117070240487 of
2024 dated 01.04.2024 registered under Sections 302 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') to conduct
just, proper and scientific investigation in order to save the
petitioner from being falsely implicated as also to expunge the
adverse remarks as contained in report-cum-order dated
20.06.2024
in Case No.2215/4/26/2024-AD as passed by
Bihar State Human Rights Commission, as it may cause
serious disadvantage to career prospects of the petitioner.
The petitioner further prayed that the recommendation made
by Bihar State Human Rights Commission for initiation of
contempt proceedings be set aside/quashed.
3. The case of prosecution is based on the written
report of one Shriram/O.P. No.2 stating therein that his
brother-in-law, namely, Shriram Singh has registered an FIR
against his son, namely, Jitesh Kumar and others and his son
Jitesh Kumar had filed an anticipatory bail petition which is
still pending for adjudication. It is further alleged that on
31.03.2024, son of informant was sitting at Bans ghat along
with his friend Mukesh Kumar, then police personnel of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
3/19
Phulwarisharif Police Station came and took Jitesh Kumar to
office-cum-residence of S.D.P.O., Phulwarisharif, where
another friend of his son namely, Rahul Kumar was present.
It is further alleged that the police took Jitesh Kumar in
another room and started beating him brutally, upon which,
Jitesh Kumar started screaming. Thereafter, the police hit
Mukesh Kumar and Rahul Kumar in the room of Jitesh Kumar
also, where Jitesh Kumar was lying and was crying due to pain
and he had vomited also. After sometime, Jitesh Kumar
became unconscious and police took Jitesh Kumar to AIIMS
Hospital in haste, where Jitesh Kumar was found brought
dead. Thereafter, the police took Jitesh Kumar in car and then
Rahul Kumar informed the son of informant, namely, Nitesh
Kumar that police have killed Jitesh Kumar by beating him
and taking his body from here to there. It is further alleged
that the informant was informed by Rajeev Nagar Police
Station in the morning that his son is admitted in P.M.C.H.
and upon reaching at P.M.C.H., the son of informant was
found dead and he had bruises all over his body. It is also
alleged that Surendra Singh and Sandesh Kumar had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
4/19
threatened that they will kill his son and both have killed his
son in connivance with police.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint,
Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 5117070240487 of 2024 dated
01.04.2024 was registered under Sections 302 and 120-B of
the IPC.
5. It is relevant to mention that prior to registration
of aforesaid FIR, Bihar Human Rights Commission, Patna had
initiated an enquiry suo motu on the basis of newspaper
report vide Case No.2215/4/26/2024-AD.
6. After completion of inquiry, the Bihar Human
Rights Commission submitted its report-cum-order vide order
dated 20.06.2024, whereby several recommendations have
been made inter alia for issuance of contempt proceedings
against the incumbent of the post of Senior Superintendent of
Police, Patna as on 31.03.2024 and all police official indicated
in the order.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Rana Vikram Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
Honorable Commission has made unwarranted adverse
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
5/19
remarks therein (more particularly in paragraph No. 24 at
Page No. 30 and paragraph No. 27 at Page No. 32-33)
against the petitioner without even issuing a show cause to
him. It is further submitted that the Honorable Commission
has initiated a suo moto inquiry whereby, during the course of
the inquiry, the statement of petitioner has been recorded.
However, the Commission has neither issued any show cause
nor provided complete materials to the petitioner and directly
recorded its finding.
8. Mr. Singh further submitted that the Honorable
Commission has passed the order dated 20.06.2024 without
application of judicial mind, and the entire order has been
passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that from a bare
perusal of the impugned order dated 20.06.2024, it appears
that the Hon’ble Commission has passed an order on
presumptive analysis, whereby no opportunity has been given
to the petitioner to present his defence or not even a show
cause has been issued to the petitioner and, therefore, the
impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
6/19
justice.
10. It is submitted that the sole reason for passing
strictures, adverse remarks, and recommendation for
contempt against the petitioner by the Honorable Commission
is that the petitioner was in the supervisory capacity of the
Phulwarisharif police station and being in the supervisory
capacity, he cannot be held liable for any offence whatsoever
in absence of any material evidence connecting the petitioner
with the said offence, which is lacking in the instant case. It is
further submitted that there is absolutely no material before
the Honorable Commission to show that the petitioner was
involved in the alleged offence or in any manner connived for
the commission of the offence and, therefore, the impugned
order is bad in the eyes of law in the absence of such
materials and as such, the same is liable to be set
aside/quashed.
11. Arguing further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble
Commission has not issued any show cause or provided any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and straightaway
passed the order without any materials to connect the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
7/19
petitioner with alleged offence.
12. It is further submitted that the petitioner was
not at all involved in any offence, whatsoever, as he was
attending an official meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. for
which, an official instruction was issued to the petitioner on
WhatsApp at 5:40 p.m. from SSP, Patna, and since then the
petitioner got engaged in preparation for the said meeting.
The findings/remarks made in the impugned order dated
20.06.2024 to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence
are totally misconceived. Moreover, the findings/remarks to
the effect that the petitioner was present at the time of the
commission of the alleged occurrence are totally false, as the
petitioner was connected/attending the official meeting at the
relevant time through virtual mode.
13. It is further submitted by learned counsel that
the Hon’ble Commission has taken cognizance of the fact that
an FIR has been registered and the investigation is still
pending and, therefore the Commission ought to have
refrained from passing the impugned order, as it may have a
bearing on the pending investigation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
8/19
14. Mr. Singh further submitted that a detailed
investigation is required so as to ascertain the truth, whereas
the Commission has summarily held the petitioner guilty of
having a common intention, whereas there is absolutely no
material connection between the petitioner and any offence. It
is submitted that the adverse remarks contained in the order
passed by the Commission are completely unwarranted and
uncalled for because no opportunity of hearing has been
provided to the petitioner.
15. It is further submitted that the Commission has
vicariously connected the petitioner with an offence, which is
not permissible under criminal law for the sole reason that the
petitioner was placed in supervisory capacity at the police
station, where the alleged offence was said to be committed.
16. It is submitted that the petitioner is an IPSf
Officer and posted as SDPO, Phulwarisharif, Patna and he was
placed in a supervisory capacity over Phulwarisharif Police
Station. It is also submitted that he is not connected with any
criminal offence for such supervisory control.
17. It is further submitted that the adverse remarks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
9/19
contained in the order passed by the Commission has severe
consequences for the petitioner’s career prospects and may
lead to false implication of the petitioner in the criminal case
without being at fault.
19. While travelling over argument, Mr. Singh
submitted that the petitioner has complete sympathy with the
deceased victim and he has never supported any form of
custodial torture and the petitioner seeks indulgence of the
Court to issue necessary direction for proper and scientific
investigation of the offence so that the people responsible for
the said offence are met with appropriate actions.
20. While concluding argument, Mr. Singh
submitted that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
is a case for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this
Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, to save the petitioner from gross injustice
and otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, proper
and scientific investigations should be carried out in
Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 5117060240487/2024, dated
01.04.2024, and adverse remarks contained in the report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
10/19
cum order dated 20.06.2024 (more particularly in paragraph
24 at page 30 and paragraph 27 at page 32 and 33) in Case
No. 2215/4/26/2024, as passed by the Hon’ble Bihar State
Human Rights Commission be expunged.
21. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
O.P. No.2.
22. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
for O.P. No.2 that the present application filed by the
petitioner is fit to be dismissed because the son of O.P. No.2,
namely, Jitesh Kumar was done to death at the office of the
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Phulwarisarif in presence of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that after murder of the son
of O.P. No.2, Phulwarisharif police maintained silence and
therefore, the Human Rights Commission, Patna took
cognizance in this matter by initiating a proceeding suo motu
on the basis of newspaper report dated 02.04.2024 of
“Dainik Jagaran” through Case No.2215 of 2024-AD.
23. It is further submitted that the order dated
20.06.2023 passed by Commission is justified for the reason
that a young, dynamic and a student with bright future
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
11/19
namely, Jitesh Kumar has been murdered by policemen in
police custody in Phulwarisharif, Sub-Divisional Police Office,
Patna. It is further submitted that the petitioner was in the
supervisory capacity of the Phulwarisharif Police Station and it
is true that the petitioner is a Senior Divisional Police Officer
(SDPO) of Phulwarisharif, Patna, who is responsible for
investigating crimes, identifying suspects and preventing
crime in the sub-division. It is further submitted that a Sub-
Divisional Police Officer is In-charge of a Sub-Division, which
is a smaller administrative unit within a district and
responsible for maintaining law and order, preventing and
detecting crime and enforcing the laws within the jurisdiction
of the Sub-Division in the State of Bihar.
24. It is further submitted by learned counsel
appearing for O.P. No.2 that the brother-in-law, namely,
Surendra Singh lodged an FIR against the son of the O.P.
No.2, namely, Jitesh Kumar and one other co-accused bearing
Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 34 of 2024 dated 07.01.2024
for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the IPC
regarding recovery of his son namely, Sushil Kumar, who was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
12/19
missing since 31.12.2023 for which a criminal writ application
vide Cr.W.J.C. No.612 of 2024 has been filed before this
Court for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
habeas corpus and for a direction to the police authority to
make proper investigation for recovery of his son. The
Hon’ble Division Bench has disposed of the case vide order
dated 04.02.2025.
25. It is further submitted that “Right to Human
Dignity”, “Right to Life & Liberty” & “Right to Inviolability of
his or her body and Right against illegal arrest are some of the
basic inalienable right, which a person is entitled to
irrespective of any other qualification. The act of committing
custodial violence is a brazen violation of the constitutional
principles and the safeguards bestowed upon the citizens by
the Constitution. The act of accruing such torture is not
limited to inflicting physical harm or pain rather the mental
torture is also encompassed under the ambit of custodial
violence. It is further submitted that there is no gainsaying in
this fact that this practice of custodial torture is prevalent in
our country since a long time and it has been grossly ignored
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
13/19
by those who are in position of power and making it worse for
those who are detained on a mere suspicion and have to face
the wrath of the same by losing their lives.
26. It is further submitted that Article 21 of the
Constitution, which is one of the luminary provisions in the
Constitution of India, and is a part of the scheme for
fundamental rights, occupies a place of pride in the
Constitution. The Article mandates that no person shall be
deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law. This sacred and cherished
right, i.e., personal liberty, has an important role to play in
the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a
right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee
against torture or assault by the State or its officials. Chapter
V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the
‘Code’) deals with the powers of arrest of persons and the
safeguards required to be followed by the police to protect the
interest of the arrested person. Articles 20(3) and 22 of the
Constitution further manifest the constitutional protection
extended to every citizen and the guarantees held out for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
14/19
making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is
therefore difficult to comprehend how torture and custodial
violence can be permitted to defy the Constitution. The rights
flowing from the dehumanizing torture, assault, and death in
custody, which have assumed alarming proportions, raise
serious questions about the credibility of the rule of law and
the administration of the criminal justice system. The
community rightly becomes disturbed. The cry for justice
becomes louder and warrants immediate remedial measures.
27. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 has
relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta [(2011 6 SCC 189)], in which the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “Policemen are persons
who are supposed to uphold the law. In our opinion, if crimes
are committed by ordinary people, ordinary punishment
should be given, but if the offence is committed by policemen,
much harsher punishment should be given to them because
they commit an act, which is totally contrary to their duties.
28. Learned counsel has also relied upon the legal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
15/19
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Prakash Singh v. Union of India [(2006 8 SCC 1)],
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court issued six major guidelines
regarding the implementation of the police reforms based on
the recommendations of the NPC and directed the Central and
State Governments to implement them. This Hon’ble Court
further asked the governments to implement the police
reforms by separating the investigation wing from the law and
order branch. It also directed to establish a complaints
authority to look into human rights violations, including
custodial deaths and abuse of authority by the police. Sadly,
the state governments do not seem to be serious about
implementing any of these police reforms.
29. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 further relied
upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Sanjay Gupta and others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, [(2022) 7 SCC 203], where it is held that
violation of life and personal liberty, compensation to the
victims must be computed in accordance with principles of
just compensation, as in the case of an accident under the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
16/19
Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
30. It is further submitted that admittedly the son
of O.P. No. 2 was young, dynamic, and having a bright future,
and this type of occurrence in police custody has completely
broken down the whole family, and, therefore, it is the duty of
the respondent authorities to compensate the family by
paying the minimum sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and further also
grant the government job to the family members.
31. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
the concerned respondent authority of Phulwarisharif Police
Patna have grossly failed in their duties and, therefore, the
present application deserves to be dismissed.
32. It would be apposite to reproduce Para-IV of
the conclusion of Judicial Enquiry Report, which was
conducted by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna
regarding custodial death of the deceased Jitesh Kumar in
connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No.34 of 2024 for
better understanding of case, which is as under:-
“IV. From the entire gamut of evidence
as available on record it is manifestly
evident that then the S.D.P.O.
Phulwarisharif Vikram Sihag (I.P.S.) had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
17/19no knowledge of the accused being
tortured at the S.D.P.O. office
Phulwarisharif. Rather he came to know
about the alleged occurrence at the
S.D.P.O. office Phulwarisharif. When he
was informed by the Police Personnel
thereafter he reached the S.D.P.O. office
and having seen Compounder and other
Police officials, he directed S.H.O.
Phulwarisharif to take the victim to
hospital immediately for treatment and
thereafter being informed about death of
the victim, he immediately informed his
superiors and he remained engaged in
the official meeting through virtual mode
presided by SSP, Patna. So, it appears
that SDPO Phulwarisharif Vikram Sihag
is not involved in any manner in the
alleged torture of the victim.”
33. It appears that the petitioner was in the
supervisory capacity of the Phulwarisharif police station and
being in the supervisory capacity, he cannot be held liable for
any offence whatsoever in absence of any material evidence
connecting the petitioner with the said offence, which is
lacking in the instant case. It also appears that there is
absolutely no material before the Commission to show that
the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence or in any
manner connived for the commission of the offence and,
therefore, the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 as passed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
18/19
by Commission is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same
is liable to be quashed/set aside. It further appears that
Hon’ble Commission has not issued show cause to the
petitioner and straightway passed order against the petitioner,
which is violative under the principles of natural justice.
34. From perusal of Para-IV of the Enquiry Report
conducted by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st class, Patna, it
appears that the petitioner had no knowledge that the son of
O.P. No.2 being tortured at the S.D.P.O. office and when he
was informed by the police personnel regarding the
occurrence, he immediately reached the S.D.P.O. office and
directed the S.H.O. Phulwarisharif to take the victim to
hospital immediately for treatment and, thereafter, being
informed about the death of victim, he immediately informed
his superiors and he remained engaged in the official meeting
presided by S.S.P., Patna. The Enquiry Officer has stated in
his report that the petitioner is not involved in any manner in
the alleged torture of the victim.
35. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and by taking note of para-IV of the enquiry report submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66363 of 2024 dt.18-08-2025
19/19
by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna, the order
dated 20.06.2024 as passed by the Bihar State Human
Rights Commission in Case No.2215/4/26/2024-AD is
hereby, quashed/set aside qua petitioner.
36. The Investigating Officer of the case is directed
to make a proper and scientific investigation in this case and
submit the charge-sheet before the court as early as possible,
considering the judicial enquiry report as discussed aforesaid
in accordance with law.
37. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
38. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
the learned trial court and Bihar State Human Rights
Commission, Patna.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18-08-2025 Transmission Date 18-08-2025