Inside Custody, Outside Accountability

The death of 22-year-old Krishna BK while in police custody in Sindhuli has become more than a single family’s tragedy—it is now a test of the state’s credibility, accountability, and respect for the rule of law. When a young man dies inside the very system meant to uphold justice, silence and delay are not neutral; they deepen suspicion and erode public trust. The allegations raised by Krishna’s family are grave. They speak of restricted access to the detainee, unclear transfers between police units, conflicting accounts of events leading up to his death, and the absence of publicly released CCTV footage. The official explanation—that he died by suicide inside a detention facility—has not been substantiated in a manner that satisfies even the most basic standard of public transparency. In such cases, perception matters as much as procedure, and both are now in question. Custodial deaths demand the highest level of scrutiny precisely because the state exercises total control over the individual’s liberty and safety. Any loss of life in custody automatically places the burden of proof on the authorities to demonstrate that due process was followed, humane treatment was ensured, and no coercion or abuse occurred. That burden is not being convincingly met in this case.