1 2025:CGHC:58546-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 423 of 2025 1. Ramkumar Banjare S/o Late Dhanna Lal Banjare Aged About 58 Years R/o Dehanpara, Ward No.-10, Tandwa, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Khelan Banjare W/o Ramkumar Banjare Aged About 50 Years R/o Dehanpara, Ward No.-10, Tandwa, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Rajendra Banjare S/o Ramkumar Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Dehanpara, Ward No.-10, Tandwa, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4. Lakhan Banjare S/o Ramkumar Banjare Aged About 26 Years R/o Dehanpara, Ward No.-10, Tandwa, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3. Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 4. Director General of Jail Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Hospital Superintendent Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital (Mekahara), Jail Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 6. Superintendent of Jail Central Jail, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.04 10:44:30 +0530 2 7. Superintendent of Jail District Jail, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 8. Superintendent of Police Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 9. Station House Officer Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 10. Station House Officer Police Station - Ganj, District - Raipur (C.G.) 11. Niranjan Singh Thakur Jail Constable, C/o Superintendent Of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Borkar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Borkar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Veer Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent authorities pertaining to the deceased Yogendra Banjare for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 3 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to constitute a high-level inquiry committee, headed by a retired Judge of this Hon’ble Court or a Senior Judicial Officer, to investigate the custodial death of Yogendra Banjare on 29.05.2025 and fix responsibility on the erring respondents. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioners for the untimely custodial death of Yogendra Banjare, caused by the respondents’ negligence and violation of fundamental rights. 10.4 That, this Honb’le Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to register a First Information Report (FIR) against respondent No. 11 (Niranjan Singh Thakur, Jail Constable and Mekahara Hospital Dr. Kundi Jyoti & Others for negligence and not providing treatment on time and other responsible officials for the offence of murder, custodial torture and caste based discrimination under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, while petitioners No. 3 and 4 are his unmarried brothers. The deceased, Yogendra Banjare, aged about 29 years, was a well-educated youth possessing a Diploma in 4 Mechanical Engineering and was the essential earning member of his family. He was employed as a Relationship Manager in a private Company. On 18.05.2025, the police of Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.), arrested the deceased in connection with Crime No.145 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), and sent a notice to the petitioner No. 3 regarding the arrest of the deceased. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 28.05.2025, the petitioners submitted a prayer letter to the Jail Superintendent requesting that the deceased, Yogendra Banjare, be admitted to a hospital for treatment. It is pertinent to mention that the deceased was previously healthy, physically fit, unmarried, had no history or symptoms of any disease, and was not taking any medication. On 24.05.2025, the petitioners received information from the District Hospital, Gariyaband, that the deceased had been admitted there. On reaching the hospital, they observed injury marks on his hands. The deceased informed them that he had been beaten by police personnel at Police Station Rajim. The X-ray report suggested that he might be suffering from a serious heart condition. He was continuously vomiting, experiencing difficulty in breathing and dizziness, and was unable to consume food. He also submits that the Doctors at District Hospital, Gariyaband, referred the deceased to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital (Mekahara), Raipur, for a CT scan and further treatment. However, the police delayed his transfer and took him there only on 5 25.05.2025. Respondent No. 11, Jail Constable Niranjan Singh Thakur, along with co-staff, accompanied him. Despite medical advice to conduct tests such as CBC, Urine Test, RFT, etc., respondent No. 11 refused, stating that his duty hours were over, and took the deceased back to Central Jail, Raipur. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 26.05.2025, an echocardiography revealed a serious heart condition—a large mass measuring 7.5 × 5.2 cm occupying the R4— and immediate surgery was recommended. Respondent No. 11 was again instructed to ensure further tests, but he failed to comply and did not provide necessary assistance. When no support was forthcoming, petitioners No. 3 and 4 approached the Hospital Superintendent at 9:00 p.m., who advised them to meet the cardiology specialists, Dr. Patre and Dr. Netam. He also contended that although the Doctors had advised the necessary tests on 25.05.2025, respondent No. 11 did not comply until 27.05.2025. Consequently, the Doctors refused to conduct the CT scan and instructed him to return the next day after completing the pending tests. Petitioners No. 3 and 4 continuously approached the CMO, MEKAHARA, from 25.05.2025 to 27.05.2025 seeking assistance, but no action was taken. Respondent No. 11 repeatedly took the deceased back to Central Jail, claiming that his duty time was over. On 28.05.2025, he again failed to bring the deceased for medical examination, and the jail authorities stated that they had other prisoners to attend to and would bring him the following day. 6 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that due to the deteriorating condition of the deceased, petitioner No. 3 submitted an application on 28.05.2025 to the Jail Superintendent seeking immediate medical treatment, but no action was taken. On 29.05.2025, RFT and CT scan were finally conducted, by which time the deceased had not eaten from 24.05.2025 to 29.05.2025. He was unable to breathe properly, was in extreme pain, and could not sit upright. Feeling subjected to extreme physical and mental torture, he pleaded with the Doctors and respondent No. 11 that without proper treatment he might not survive another day. Although the Doctors advised that he be kept in the emergency ward and shifted to Ward No. 23 if required, respondent No. 11 insisted on taking him back to jail. He threatened the petitioners, used abusive and caste-based derogatory language, and stated that any treatment would only be provided the next day. He further stated that when petitioners No. 3 and 4 went to collect the CT scan report and meet the Doctor on 30.05.2025 at 10:00 a.m., respondent No. 11 casually informed them that their brother had passed away. They later learned from Police Station Ganj that the death had occurred on 29.05.2025 at 6:16 p.m., but this information was not promptly conveyed to them. Injury marks were observed on the deceased’s body before the postmortem. Respondent No. 11 had been taking money daily from petitioners No. 3 and 4 on the pretext of expediting medical tests and facilitating treatment. He also concealed medical records and misled the Doctors by falsely stating that the deceased was receiving adequate care in the Central Jail Hospital. Petitioner No. 4 lodged a 7 written complaint at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, alleging that the deceased was murdered intentionally and seeking registration of an FIR against the Jail Superintendent, respondent No. 11, and his co-staff. However, no action has been taken to date. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the respondents’ refusal to act on medical advice, the unjustified delay in conducting essential tests, and the forceful transfer of the deceased back to jail despite his critical condition constitute arbitrary and unlawful conduct violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, being dependent on the deceased, are entitled to compensation for the loss of their vital family member caused by the respondents' unconstitutional and negligent acts. Hence, the present petition. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the deceased, Yogendra Banjare, was arrested by the police of Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) on 18.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 145 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a), and 3(5) of the BNS. The deceased was lodged in District Jail, Gariyaband, on 23.05.2025. Before being shifted to jail, he was admitted to the Community Health Centre, Rajim, by the Station Incharge on 18.05.2025 for medical examination. On 23.05.2025, he complained of chest pain and was admitted to District Hospital, Gariyaband, where primary treatment was provided. Due to further breathing difficulties, he was referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 8 Memorial Hospital (Mekahara), Raipur, for HRCT chest and medical opinion on 25.05.2025. Consequently, he was shifted to Central Jail, Raipur, and from there taken to Mekahara on the same day. After medical evaluation, he was referred to the Medicine Department. On 26.05.2025, relevant medical tests were conducted, and on 27.05.2025, his blood tests were also completed. During the course of treatment, the prisoner expired on 29.05.2025 at around 06:16 p.m. at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. 9. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that after the death of the deceased, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, informed the Incharge of Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, on 29.05.2025. On the same date, the Jail Superintendent also notified the District and Sessions Judge, Raipur, requesting initiation of a judicial inquiry. Further, on 30.05.2025, the Jail Superintendent informed the District Magistrate, Raipur, and sent the requisite proforma information to the National Human Rights Commission. Following due procedure, the police sent the body for postmortem. A team of Doctors concluded that the death was caused due to cardiac tamponade resulting from atrial rupture associated with a pre-existing mass in the heart, and the heart was preserved for histopathological examination. Subsequently, on 26.07.2025, the Medical Officer, Central Jail, Raipur, submitted a detailed report regarding the medical treatment provided to the deceased. He further contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, vide memo dated 30.05.2025, directed the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shri Aslam Khan, to conduct a judicial inquiry 9 under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section Section 196 of the BNSS). Pursuant thereto, the JMFC initiated an inquiry, examined all relevant documents, and concluded that the death of the deceased occurred due to right atrial rupture caused by a mass in the heart. The report categorically states that the nature of death was natural and not attributable to negligence by any person. 10. Learned State counsel would submit that the deceased died due to cardiac tamponade resulting from atrial rupture associated with a pre- existing heart mass. The judicial inquiry also classifies the death as natural. As per the State Government’s policy notified on 14th August 2023, compensation is not admissible where death occurs due to natural causes. Therefore, the present case does not involve death caused by any incident or custodial negligence; rather, the deceased passed away during medical treatment for a pre-existing heart condition. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to compensation, and there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of the answering respondents. The petition is thus devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. From the material placed on record, including the postmortem report and the judicial inquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 196 of the BNSS), it is evident that the deceased was suffering from a pre-existing large cardiac mass occupying almost 10 the entire right atrium, leading to rupture of the right atrial wall and resulting in cardiac tamponade. The postmortem findings clearly indicate that the coronary arteries were patent, the right atrium was significantly enlarged, and a large adherent mass measuring approximately 9 cm in diameter had almost completely occupied the right atrial cavity. The rupture with irregular hemorrhagic margins and associated blood clots is consistent with a pathological cardiac event rather than any external injury or custodial assault. 13. The judicial inquiry conducted by the competent Magistrate has categorically concluded that the death was natural, attributable to the pre-existing cardiac pathology, and not caused by negligence, ill- treatment, or any act or omission by jail or police authorities. The inquiry further notes that medical treatment was provided to the deceased at various stages and that the death occurred during the course of treatment in the hospital. 14. The allegations raised by the petitioners regarding assault, delay, and intentional negligence have not been substantiated by any cogent material. On the contrary, the contemporaneous medical records, postmortem findings, and the judicial inquiry report contradict the assertions of custodial violence or deliberate denial of medical care. While this Court empathizes with the grief of the petitioners, the record does not support a finding of constitutional violation or custodial misconduct warranting compensation under public law. Further, as per the State Government’s policy dated 14.08.2023, compensation is not 11 admissible in cases where death has occurred due to natural causes. In the present case, the medical and judicial findings unequivocally establish that the deceased died of a natural cardiac condition, and therefore, the claim for compensation under this petition is not maintainable. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no material to hold the respondents responsible for the death of the deceased or to grant compensation as sought. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan