HC stays Punjab human rights panel’s order directing FIR registration against 5 cops over ‘custodial torture’ of brothers

The bench was hearing a civil writ petition filed by Inspector Gagandeep Singh Sekhon, assistant sub-inspectors Satnam Singh and Makhan Singh, and constables Gurpreet Singh and Harsimranjit Singh from Jalandhar’s Division No.3 police station. They challenged the Commission’s October 13 order that asked the Jalandhar Police Commissioner to file a First Information Report (FIR) under Indian Penal Code sections for kidnapping, wrongful confinement, public servant disobeying the law, common intention, and criminal conspiracy.

2023 dispute outside shop

The dispute began on July 3, 2023, outside an electrical goods shop in Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar, owned by Constable Harsimranjit Singh’s father. The officers said brothers Ankursh Gupta and Rahul Gupta, along with their father Raj Kumar Gupta, got angry when a customer parked a vehicle blocking the shop entrance. They claimed the Guptas got into a verbal fight, assaulted Harsimranjit and his father, and pulled off their turbans. A CCTV camera captured the clash.

The police subsequently filed an FIR against the brothers under sections for snatching, outraging religious feelings, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal conspiracy. The Guptas were arrested that evening outside the Jalandhar Civil Hospital.

Multiple medical checks were conducted at the hospital from July 4 in which no major injuries were found, and follow-ups were carried out on July 6 and 7 at Kapurthala Civil Hospital and jail, noting no fresh wounds – this went against their later torture claims. Ankursh Gupta, released on bail on July 25, reported foot pain since July 11, which he blamed on police action, and stayed at the DMC Hospital in Ludhiana until he was discharged on August 5.

The Guptas complained to the Human Rights Commission on April 5, 2024, alleging police misconduct and demanding action. An initial probe by Special Director General of Police Naveen Sain in July 2024 suggested initiating internal measures against Gagandeep Singh for issues like using a private vehicle for arrests, but supported the original case against the brothers using the footage. After the Guptas objected, a fresh review by Deputy Superintendent of Police Deepak Singh led to the registration of a criminal case against the five police officers.

Right’s panel’s process ‘unfair’

In the petition filed on November 21, the officers called the Commission’s process unfair and one-sided. They said it overlooked medical records and footage showing no torture, with any injuries likely to be inflicted by self or after release. They argued the arrests followed Criminal Procedure Code rules and that the Commission exceeded its role by ordering to file a case instead of just suggesting it. The original case against the Guptas is still in trial before a Jalandhar court, which the officers described as an attempt to target them in return.

The bench noted that the Commission went beyond its scope by giving binding orders to authorities rather than suggestions, as required under the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993. The court said the Commission can only advise the state government, which decides whether to follow it. If rejected, the Commission can then approach the high court or the Supreme Court.

The bench issued notices to the state, the Commission, the Jalandhar Police Commissioner and the Gupta brothers.

Additional Advocate General Vipin Pal Yadav, appearing for Punjab, accepted the notice and sought time for guidance. The court put on hold the Commission’s orders against the officers until the next hearing on January 13, 2026.

Navkiran Singh, appearing for the petitioners, sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation, claiming the investigation was swayed by the complainants.