Rajasthan High Court questions police as probe into attack on Dalit family changes hands six times

The police investigation into a case of alleged land encroachment and attack on a Dalit family in Rajasthan’s Bharatpur district changed hands six times in the last two years, prompting the High Court to intervene. There was also a complete absence of supervisory review of the pending probe.

The victim, Jitendra Kumar, 24, a resident of Bharatpur’s Bayana block, moved the High Court seeking a fair investigation, completion of the probe and filing of a chargesheet in the case. The first information report (FIR) was registered on May 10, 2024, following an attack on Mr. Kumar and his family members.

The “politically influential” people who allegedly attacked the Dalit family in Kair village in a bid to encroach upon its agricultural land also registered an FIR against the victims. Though the police found the counter-case to be frivolous, the original case has been probed by as many as six investigating officers without any conclusion.

“Despite the lapse of 26 months and a provision in the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for completion of probe in 60 days, the police have failed to act,” Mr. Kumar said in his writ petition. The investigating officers included a Circle Officer and five Additional Superintendents of Police, including one serving in the civil rights cell.

The offences for which 12 accused belonging to the Gujjar community were booked under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (PoA) Act included rioting, attempt to commit culpable homicide, causing grievous hurt, unlawful assembly, criminal trespass and criminal intimidation.

The present investigating officer, Dinesh Kumar Meena, stated in the High Court that the offences against the accused had been proved and the result of the probe would be submitted in the trial court within two weeks.

Justice Shubha Mehta at the High Court’s Jaipur Bench observed earlier this week that the failure to complete the investigation in time was “concerning” and no satisfactory reason had been given for the delay. The petitioner also stated that calling him to join the probe every time after the change of hands amounted to his harassment.

The court directed the Public Prosecutor to obtain affidavits from all investigating officers named in the factual report, “explaining why the probe was not completed in 60 days and reasons for the subsequent delay”. Similar affidavits were also sought from the officers forming the supervisory committee under Rule 7(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Welcoming the High Court’s order, the Centre for Dalit Rights (CDR) said here on Sunday (August 23, 2026) that the investigation could have been completed and the accused arrested if the authorities had complied with the statutory review mechanism. The matter will come up in the court for further hearing on September 7.

The members of the supervisory committee include the Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Social Justice & Empowerment Secretary, and Director of Prosecution. CDR Director Satish Kumar said though the committee was required to review pending cases under the SC/ST (PoA) Act once every quarter, the meetings were not held regularly and no relief was granted to Dalit victims.