Woman says hung upside down in police custody, 2 Jharkhand cops suspended

A 33-year-old Adivasi woman from Latehar alleged that police assaulted her after taking her from near Bagnadi Mahua on October 5. She said officers accused her of involvement in poppy cultivation, took her to a police station, tied and hung her upside down, beat her, and sexually harassed her. She also alleged that police took Rs 80,000 from her home and forced her to record a statement.

The police gave a different account of the raid. They said officers were investigating alleged illegal opium sales involving her husband and another man. Police claimed opium was found in the woman’s possession and that she bit a constable before handing a packet to another man, who allegedly fled.

After the allegations became public, Hemant Soren directed action. Bariyatu station officer-in-charge Prabhat Kumar Das and Constable Manish Kumar Ram were suspended. Departmental proceedings began, and a joint inquiry team is investigating the complaint submitted by Puniya and other women.

The suspended officers were Prabhat Kumar Das, the officer-in-charge of Bariyatu police station, and Manish Kumar Ram, a constable and CCTNS operator there. Their suspension came after Puniya alleged custodial assault, sexual harassment, threats, and the removal of money from her home. The police also acknowledged a procedural lapse during the operation.

In a departmental investigation, suspension generally means an employee is temporarily kept away from regular duties while allegations are examined. It can protect the inquiry from interference and allows the department to review evidence, witness accounts, and official conduct. It is an administrative step, not a criminal conviction or a final conclusion that the allegations are proven.

The article reports that departmental proceedings were initiated against both men. A joint inquiry team was formed to investigate Puniya’s complaint and complaints from other women. The police said the inquiry report was still awaited, so the final consequences had not yet been announced.

Puniya alleged that plain-clothes policemen stopped her while she was grazing goats near Bagnadi Mahua on October 5. She said they accused her of involvement in poppy cultivation, searched her home, took Rs 80,000, and brought her to a police station outside her home’s stated jurisdiction. She further alleged that officers tied and hung her upside down, beat her with sticks, forced green chillies into her mouth, touched her inappropriately, and pressured her to record a statement.

Police described the event as a raid based on information about alleged illegal opium sales. They said Puniya was with her husband, Mukesh Ganjhu, and Yadav. According to police, opium was allegedly found in her possession. They claimed she bit Constable Manish Kumar Ram, snatched a packet, and handed it to Yadav, who allegedly escaped with it.

These accounts remain contested. The police said Puniya’s allegations were still under investigation, while a joint inquiry team examined her complaint and those submitted by other women. The inquiry report was awaited.

The police suspended two officers: Bariyatu station officer-in-charge Prabhat Kumar Das and Constable Manish Kumar Ram. This is the article’s confirmed figure for disciplinary action. The suspensions followed allegations that Puniya was assaulted and mistreated during questioning over alleged poppy cultivation.

The inquiry was broader than one person’s complaint. Police said a joint inquiry team was formed to investigate the complaint submitted by Puniya and other women. The complaints were also forwarded by the village head and the mukhiya. However, the article does not state how many other women complained or give a total number of complaints.

That distinction matters when reporting the scale of the case. The known number of suspended policemen is two, but the number of women involved in the inquiry is unspecified. Police said departmental proceedings had begun and that the inquiry report was still awaited, so the investigation remained incomplete.

India’s Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is the country’s central law on controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It aims to prevent illegal production, possession, sale, transport, trafficking, and use. It also creates offences and penalties, while allowing regulated medical and scientific activities under lawful authorization.

The law matters because police investigations and seizures must follow specific safeguards. Depending on the situation, those safeguards can involve recording information, obtaining authorization, conducting searches properly, documenting recovery, and involving required officials or witnesses. These steps help preserve evidence and protect people from arbitrary action.

In this case, police said they were investigating alleged illegal opium sales. They acknowledged that the raid and recovery took place without a gazetted officer or magistrate, which they said was required under the NDPS Act. The article does not decide the legal outcome, but the acknowledged lapse could become important during the inquiry or any later case.

The police acknowledged that the raid and recovery proceedings were conducted without a gazetted officer or magistrate. They said such an official’s presence was required under the NDPS Act. This is important because drug cases depend heavily on properly documented searches, recoveries, and chain of evidence.

A gazetted officer or magistrate can provide independent oversight during a legally sensitive search. Their involvement may help confirm what was searched, what was recovered, and how the process was conducted. Without the required safeguard, the defence could question whether the search followed the law, whether the alleged opium was recovered as claimed, and whether the evidence should be relied upon.

The lapse does not by itself establish that no opium existed or determine the case’s outcome. Police claimed that opium was found and that Puniya passed a packet to Yadav. At the same time, her allegations remained under investigation, and the inquiry report had not yet been completed.

Rules about warrants, witnesses, magistrates, and custody treatment turn legal power into accountable procedure. They require police to explain why they are searching or detaining someone and to record what happens. This protects personal liberty and gives courts a reliable way to examine official conduct.

For example, independent witnesses or a magistrate can help verify a search and recovery. Clear custody rules can prevent beating, humiliation, sexual abuse, or forced statements. If officials ignore these protections, a person may challenge the search, the evidence, or the treatment in custody. Proper records also help investigators distinguish a genuine raid from an abuse of authority.

The Latehar case shows why procedure matters. Police alleged an opium-related raid but acknowledged that no gazetted officer or magistrate was present, despite saying the NDPS Act required one. Puniya alleged serious mistreatment and coercion. Suspensions and a joint inquiry now provide accountability steps, but the final findings were still pending.