During the hearing, the court did not limit itself solely to the issue of compensation, but also raised serious questions about the investigation and fixing of responsibility for the custodial death. In this context, two top state officials have been directed to present their case before the court.
Supreme Court summoned DGP and Home Secretary
In the case to the death of 34-year-old Shravan Suryavanshi in Bilaspur Central Jail, the Supreme Court has directed the Chhattisgarh Director General of Police (DGP) and Home Secretary to appear via video conferencing on August 4. The court also asked the state government what steps have been taken so far to register an FIR and initiate a criminal investigation into the custodial death.
Special leave petition filed by wife and daughters
The deceased’s wife, Lahra Bai Tamrakar, and their two minor daughters filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court order. A division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, hearing the case, sought a detailed response from the state government and directed the personal appearance of the two senior officials.
He died three days after his arrest.
According to the case, on January 18, 2024, Sipat police arrested Shravan Suryavanshi under the Excise Act for possessing six liters of raw mahua liquor. He was subsequently sent to Bilaspur Central Jail. On January 21, his health deteriorated and he was admitted to SIMS Hospital, where he died the next day.
Judicial inquiry reveals serious injury
A judicial inquiry was conducted after the death. The investigation report stated that Shravan Suryavanshi (Supreme Court) died due to complications arising from a serious head injury. Following this, the family demanded an FIR against the police and jail officials involved and compensation of 50 lakh rupees.
The court objected to the compensation of Rs 1 lakh.
In this case, the High Court had ordered compensation of one lakh rupees to the family in October 2024. The Supreme Court has now described this amount as grossly inadequate compared to the family’s loss and suffering. The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the state government’s affidavit, stating that it did not clearly state what action had been taken so far regarding the criminal investigation and filing of an FIR in the custodial death case. The next hearing in the case will be on August 4, when the state government will present its side before the court.
