Allahabad High Court Flags ‘Institutional Failures’ In 2009 Custodial Death Case, Orders CBI To Trace Missing Video Evidence

The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious doubts over the Uttar Pradesh Police’s claim that a 40% physically disabled man committed suicide inside a police lock-up in Mainpuri district in 2009, observing that the circumstances surrounding the death “did not prima facie gel with the official version of the police and the State".

The division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, while hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives, said the case reflected “institutional failures” on the part of the judiciary, the State machinery and even the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Court ultimately directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to recover missing videography related to the case within 60 days.

The case concerns the death of Nahar Singh alias Sneh, who died in police custody at PS Dannahar, Mainpuri, on May 9, 2009. According to the police, Singh hanged himself in the urinal area of the lock-up using his leather belt. However, court observed that a police lock-up is an area under constant watch and remarked that it was “almost an impossibility” for such an act to occur unnoticed, particularly when the deceased suffered from 40% physical disability.

Why did the High Court say the judiciary itself failed in the case?

Answering this question, the bench acknowledged that the PIL, filed in 2010, remained pending for nearly sixteen years without effective monitoring of evidence. Court said such cases required urgent hearings and continuous judicial pressure to preserve crucial material like videography of the scene of occurrence and postmortem proceedings.

The judges observed that the prolonged delay may have enabled authorities to “cover its tracks” and obscure the truth. Court noted that despite repeated orders passed in January, February, March and April 2026, the State failed to produce the videography and photographs allegedly prepared during the inquest and postmortem.

The bench found the medical evidence particularly troubling. Referring to the postmortem report, court noted that doctors recorded a “knot mark” behind the ear rather than an impression of a belt buckle, which would ordinarily appear if hanging had occurred using a leather belt.

Court further pointed to fractures in the tracheal rings and observed that such injuries were more commonly associated with strangulation than suicidal hanging. The judges remarked that such injuries were improbable in a case where a disabled person allegedly hanged himself with his feet “almost touching the ground".

What did the court say about the role of the police and NHRC?

The bench strongly criticised the conduct of the State and police authorities, observing that repeated attempts were being made to shift responsibility for the missing videography onto the NHRC. Court said there was reasonable cause to believe that the video recordings had always remained with the police.

The judges also scrutinised the NHRC’s 2011 decision closing the complaint filed by the deceased’s father. The commission had accepted the police version that Singh committed suicide after being distressed over a failed relationship and had concluded there was no custodial negligence.

Questioning this approach, the high court observed that the NHRC failed to conduct any independent investigation, did not record statements of family members, the girl allegedly involved in the relationship, neighbours, or police personnel present at the station, and simply accepted the police version as “gospel truth".

Stating that the conduct of the police, State authorities and NHRC prima facie reflected three separate institutional failures, court directed the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch at Ghaziabad to secure the missing video recordings within sixty days and place them before the court.

The matter has been listed for August 10, 2026.

Case Title: Association For Advocacy And Legal Initiatives, Lucknow vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Order Date: May 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan