The Supreme Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the custodial death of a 34-year-old man in Chhattisgarh and directed the state to pay ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to his widow and two minor daughters.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta transferred the investigation to the CBI after noting that the state police registered an FIR only on July 30, 2026—more than two years after the man’s death in January 2024.

The man was taken into custody on January 18, 2024, following an allegation that liquor was being kept for sale outside his grocery shop. He died in hospital three days later, on January 21.

A judicial magistrate’s inquiry attributed the death to complications from a head injury caused by a blunt weapon. The man’s wife and daughters then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking an investigation. The High Court awarded compensation of ₹1 lakh but did not order a fresh probe, prompting the family to move the Supreme Court.

The apex court noted that the deceased was the family’s sole breadwinner and that the state government had not disputed findings that he suffered violence while in custody and died an unnatural death.

The bench directed the CBI to assign the case to a senior officer. The central agency has also been asked to examine the conduct of state officials who allegedly failed to take appropriate steps after the judicial inquiry report was submitted.

The ₹25 lakh payment is interim compensation, not the final amount. The Supreme Court said the final compensation would be determined while the petition is adjudicated. The direction therefore provides immediate relief to the family without closing the larger question of accountability or damages.

Compensation and criminal prosecution serve different purposes. Financial relief recognises the loss suffered by the family, while the CBI inquiry will determine whether evidence supports charges against any individual. Payment of compensation does not establish the criminal guilt of a particular police officer, nor does it prevent prosecution if the investigation finds sufficient material.

The court’s intervention is significant for two reasons. First, it shifts the investigation away from the state police whose delay is itself under scrutiny. Second, it expands the inquiry beyond the immediate circumstances of the death to the official response that followed.

A CBI investigation does not determine guilt. The agency must collect evidence, identify any officials responsible and place its findings before the competent court. Any person named in the investigation retains the right to defend themselves through the legal process.

The investigation is also expected to review medical records, custody documentation, witness statements and the judicial inquiry. Because the Supreme Court has specifically asked the agency to examine the post-inquiry conduct of officials, the two-year delay in registering the FIR will be a central part of the case—not merely a background detail.

Custodial-death cases carry a special public-interest burden because evidence and official records are largely controlled by the same system accused of wrongdoing. An independent investigation is intended to reduce that conflict and protect confidence in the eventual findings.

For Chhattisgarh, the order is a major accountability development. It sends a clear message that delay in registering a case, particularly after an adverse judicial inquiry in an alleged custodial-death matter, can undermine public confidence and justify transfer to an independent central agency.