The four Bengaluru police officials accused of custodial torture leading to the death of a Dalit man named Darshan are absconding after their anticipatory bail petitions were denied. While the police face allegations of assaulting Darshan in lock up, preliminary investigation shows that an already injured Darshan was also allegedly beaten up even at the rehabilitation centre where he died.
The four policemen, Inspector Shiva Kumar HR, head constable Mallappa Bapakar and constables Pavan Kumar and Shivaraja, all attached to the Viveknagar police station, are under suspension.
Twenty-three-year-old Darshan, a resident of Sonnenahalli in Bengaluru, died at Unity Social Service Rehab Centre in Adakamaranahalli, Nelamangala, on the outskirts of Bengaluru in the last week of November 2025. His mother, Adilakshmi, has alleged that the Viveknagar police assaulted him in lockup, which then led to his death at the rehab centre.
Viveknagar police picked up Darshan at around 1.30 am on November 13, while he and Adilakshmi were sitting outside their house in Sonnenahalli in Koramangala. The police claimed that he was taken for questioning for brandishing a weapon at a local church.
The Viveknagar police admitted him to the Unity rehab centre on November 16, and on November 26, Darshan’s family received a call saying that he had died after developing breathing problems.
In a statement to a fact-finding team, Adilakshmi had alleged that the Viveknagar police assaulted Darshan in the station jail for several days and that she had seen injuries on his body. Darshan’s wife, Ashwini, had alleged that the police intimidated her and offered her “help” for their two-year-old daughter.
On November 27, 2025, the Madanayakanahalli police registered a case under Sections 103(1) (murder), 127(3) (wrongful confinement), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(v) (person who commits any offence against an SC or ST person punishable by 10 years) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of) Atrocities Act.
The investigation of the case was handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which then arrested eight people, including the owner of the rehab centre.
A CID officer told TNM that the four police officials were absconding and that they were on the lookout for them. The officer said that the CID was close to filing the chargesheet, but approvals regarding sanctions for prosecution would have to be obtained since some of the accused were police officers.
All four accused police officials had filed applications for anticipatory bail, but Inspector Shivakumar withdrew his application on December 8. The anticipatory bail pleas of the other three were rejected by the Second Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge of Bengaluru Rural district on January 12.
Denial of bail to the police
Mallappa and Shivaraja had filed joint applications, while Pavan Kumar had filed a separate plea seeking anticipatory bail.
Judge K Guruprasad denied bail to the three police officials on similar grounds, saying “It is clear that a prima facie case is made out in the complaint against the petitioners.” The judge noted that Darshan was illegally held in police custody, and the post mortem report showed he had injuries on his body.
The judge noted that Adilakshmi, the complainant and Darshan’s mother, saw police officials, including the petitioners, take Darshan from his house. When Adilakshmi visited Viveknagar police station on November 13 and 14, constable Pavan Kumar spoke to Adilakshmi and refused to release Darshan.
Pavan Kumar also called Adilakshmi on November 15 and told her that Darshan would be taken to the rehabilitation centre. When Adilakshmi went to the police station at 4.30 pm that day, Pavan spoke to her again, and she saw that Darshan was injured and in lock up, “incapable of walking”, the judge noted in the order.
When Adilakshmi saw Darshan’s body at the Nelamangala Government Hospital, injuries were visible. The judge also cited the post mortem report which showed 23 injuries on Darshan’s body.
“Whether the deceased died due to injuries sustained in assault in police lock up or due to injuries sustained in the rehab centre or due to injuries sustained at both places can be considered only after obtaining the FSL report,” Judge Guruprasad said.
Noting that the three police officials had not denied that they were on duty during the period in question, Judge Guruprasad relied on Supreme Court orders in Ajay Kumar Yadav vs the State of UP and State of Jharkhand vs Sandeep Kumar on the question of granting bail to police officers accused of custodial torture or death.
The Supreme Court had said that the “usual liberal approach to bail does not apply to custodial death cases involving police officials,” and that the accused being police officials was an “aggravating circumstance” for denying bail “as the potential for abusing their position to derail the investigation is the primary ground for rejection.”
Pavan Kumar had said that the SC/ST Atrocity Act does not apply to him, as he himself is a Scheduled Caste person. However, the judge rejected his argument, citing Supreme Court orders.
The judge went on to reject the bail pleas, saying that since the petitioners were police officials, they might misuse their position and tamper with the evidence, threaten prosecution witnesses including Adilakshmi, or flee and affect the investigation.
Beaten by rehab centre staff
Court documents show that Darshan may even have been beaten by staff at the rehab centre. Lakshmikanth S, the owner of the rehab centre, sought anticipatory bail, claiming that he was “from a good family” and had no previous criminal record.
He said that the police “might have manhandled Darshan and when the situation went out of hand, in order to escape” allegations of a “lock up death, they managed to shift the injured to the rehab centre.” He said he had no ill will or motive to commit such an offence.
The Atrocity Act mandates that the complainant be heard in cases of bail applications of the accused.
Adilakshmi’s lawyer objected to Lakshmikanth’s bail plea and told the court that she was told that Darshan was in good condition from November 15 to 26 but was suddenly informed of his death on November 26. “As such, there is the role of (Lakshmikanth) and other staff of the rehab centre in this crime,” the court noted.
The court relied on Adilakshmi’s statements and said that the owner should have ensured that Darshan was treated for his injuries when he was admitted to the rehab centre.
The judge also noted that the CCTV footage gathered by the investigating officer shows the staff of the rehab centre beating Darshan with a belt and lathi on November 23 and 26. “It cannot be believed at this stage that such negligence and beating took place without knowledge of the petitioner, who is the proprietor of the said rehab centre,” the judge said.
Stating that there was a possibility that the investigation could be tampered with as the police were yet to record the statements of other patients who were present at the rehab centre from Nov 15 to 26, the judge rejected Lakshmikanth’s bail plea.
Of the eight arrested, Nani S, Shahid Ahmed, Hitesh Kumar, Manjunatha, Naveen Kumar, and Naveen NA have applied for bail. These applications are yet to be heard.
This reporting is made possible with support from Report for the World, an initiative of The GroundTruth Project.
