Nagpur: Serious questions over custodial safety, police oversight and alleged abuse of power have surfaced after a 19-year-old student, booked under the POCSO Act, died inside the lock-up of Jaripatka Police Station, prompting the suspension of a Police Sub-Inspector and three constables for alleged negligence.
The deceased, Nagendra Kumar Bhatia, a native of Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh, was found dead inside the police lock-up between Wednesday night and Thursday morning. Police claim he died by suicide, allegedly hanging himself using a torn bedsheet tied to the grill of the lock-up door. However, the circumstances surrounding the death, and the failure of on-duty staff to detect it in time, have raised troubling concerns.
Gold Rate
23 Jan 2026
A post-mortem examination was conducted on Friday in the presence of a judicial magistrate, with preliminary findings attributing the cause of death to asphyxiation. The body was later handed over to the family.
According to official records, the incident came to light around 9 am on Thursday, several hours after it allegedly occurred. At the time, PSI Nitin Atram was posted as the night duty officer, while constables Abhay Khadse, Pramod Dudhkavre and Rahul Chavan were assigned to monitor the lock-up. The fact that a detainee could allegedly take his life without being noticed for hours led senior officials to conclude prima facie negligence, resulting in their immediate suspension.
Given that the death occurred in police custody, the case has been handed over to the Crime Investigation Department (CID), as mandated by law. CID officials are expected to record statements of police personnel on duty as well as the deceased’s family members to ascertain whether standard custodial protocols were followed, or violated.
Nagendra, a final-year BSc student, had been arrested in connection with a case of kidnapping and rape after allegedly eloping with a minor girl. Police brought him to Nagpur from Prayagraj on January 17 and produced him before a local court on January 19, following which he was lodged in police custody.
However, the family has alleged that Nagendra was under severe mental pressure, claiming he was being harassed and subjected to extortion demands in connection with the case. According to relatives, members of the complainant’s side allegedly demanded Rs 5 lakh to “settle” the matter. The family has also alleged police complicity, though these claims are yet to be independently verified.
Adding to the controversy, the family alleged that they were not officially informed about Nagendra’s death in time, and learnt about it through an acquaintance. Police countered the allegation, stating that protocol requires relatives to be informed only after a doctor formally declares the detainee dead. The family has rejected this explanation, calling it “illogical” and insensitive.
Jaripatka police have registered a case of accidental death, pending the outcome of the CID investigation. Senior officials have indicated that further departmental action cannot be ruled out, depending on the findings of the probe.
As the investigation unfolds, the case has once again put the spotlight on custodial safeguards, monitoring lapses and the treatment of undertrial prisoners, raising uncomfortable questions about accountability within the policing system.
