# Rajkot Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0104](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0104)

## Report card

By judgment dated 28 September 2026 in R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 9593 of 2024, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: M. K. Thakker, J.) adjudicated the matter concerning the Officer-in-charge, Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot.

- Register number: GJ 03 CW 0005
- Case reference: R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 9593 of 2024
- Court and date: Gujarat High Court (Coram: M. K. Thakker, J.), 28 September 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time: Officer-in-charge, Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot
- Present service status: Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked: Section of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the Section 154 of the Code; Section of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the Section 176 of the Code; Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract): “instead of taking appropriate action, either by registering an FIR or by treating the same as a private complaint, the said complaint was made a part of the inquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure” (at para 12)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum: Adverse finding.
- Present status of the proceedings: The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174018341/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0104)

**Record:** CW-2026-0104 (compiler id CWC-1394)
**Title:** Rajkot Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court (verified as High Court of Gujarat); judges: M. K. Thakker
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 9593 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2026-09-28 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-03-25 (2023)
**Place:** Rajkot, Gujarat; city town: Rajkot; police station or unit: Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-charge, Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rajkot man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court recorded that a Joint Director General of Foreign Trade at Rajkot, arrested by the CBI in a bribery trap on 24.03.2023, was kept in his office overnight while the post-trap panchnama continued, and died on the morning of 25.03.2023 after, as a CBI constable reported, jumping from a window. Rajkot's Pradhyumannagar police registered only an accidental-death inquiry; an SIT found the CBI officers had not taken proper care but were not involved in the death, and a judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC found they had caused no harm. His family sought an FIR alleging murder. On 28.09.2026 the High Court held that, instead of registering an FIR or treating the family's complaint as a private complaint, the police had folded it into the Section 176 inquiry, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari. It directed registration of an FIR against an unknown person and further investigation under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime, with a report within three months.

> instead of taking appropriate action, either by registering an FIR or by treating the same as a private complaint, the said complaint was made a part of the inquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174018341/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Rajkot Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-10-05', 'scope': 'Copwatch convictions sweep (5 Oct): record written from the judgment text on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; no personal finding against any officer is claimed.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Gujarat', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The High Court held the police had not registered an FIR on the family's complaint about a death in CBI custody and had folded it into the Section 176 inquiry; it directed an FIR against an unknown person and investigation under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime, with a report in three months.", 'disposition': 'Adverse finding (failure to register FIR in a custodial death) · FIR and supervised investigation directed · no compensation', 'source': 'R/SCR.A/9593/2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-10-05
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174018341/', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Gujarat High Court judgment dated 28.09.2026 (Indian Kanoon). The custody timeline is at paras 2.1-2.3, the SIT and judicial-inquiry conclusions at paras 2.5-2.6, the finding on non-registration at para 12, and the direction for an FIR and DIG-supervised investigation at para 17. The court made no finding that any officer caused the death; the SIT and the judicial inquiry had found no CBI involvement. Names of the deceased, his family and the officers are withheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0104](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0104)