The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The family of 33-year-old Biren Kumar Kafley, who was taken into police custody late at night on 12th November 2025 and later brought to JDWNRH in a brain-dead condition before passing away on 23rd November, is calling for an external investigation into the incident, saying they remain unconvinced by the explanations provided so far by the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP).
Although RBP is conducting an investigation into possible lapses that may have led to the incident, the family said they are still left without answers, and therefore, hope for the involvement of external agencies such as the Office of the Attorney General or the Judiciary.
Despite visiting the alleged incident site (located a few kilometers from the Lungtenphug viewpoint) in the presence of a forensic doctor, police personnel and officers, the family said they came away with even more doubts.
The deceased’s wife said that during their visit to the site on 5th December, the only explanation provided by police was a probable bloodstain on the roadside which they claimed might belong to her husband.
“We are still not satisfied with the explanations given by the police. The doctor told us we were allowed to visit the site while they conducted investigations, so we went hoping for clarity, but we received none,” she said.
She said that if not for media reports about eyewitnesses, the family would not have known, as even until 23rd November, the day her husband passed away, police had not informed them of such developments.
She said, “My husband died while in police custody, and we deserve a clear and truthful investigation. We are only asking for justice and transparency. But we are still not informed about the eyewitnesses or any videos from the time of the incident, which raises more questions.”
She also shared her concerns about inconsistencies in the police’s verbal accounts. On 14th November, when her husband was admitted to the hospital, police told her the van was ‘on speed’ but did not specify how fast it was travelling.
She was further unsettled when different officers gave conflicting information, some said her husband was handcuffed in front, others claimed it was at the back.
“The reason I am still not satisfied is because although my husband was not caught red-handed with any drugs, he was still taken into custody saying he needed to be interrogated. From that point on, he was the police’s responsibility. Regardless of whether he was at fault, they had a duty to protect him,” she said.
Additionally, she said that when she last saw her husband on the evening of 12th November, she was told the case would be followed up on Monday and was not informed of any confession.
She said she only learned about the accident because she called the police station around 3 pm, and by the time her husband had already been taken to the emergency ward.
“Police could have informed me immediately or called his parents, especially since they had his phone in custody,” she pointed out.
Regarding his injuries, she recalled no visible external wounds on his body except for scratches on his knuckles more so on the right side and one on the left, and swelling on the left side above his ear. Also, his pants were wet which she said must probably be from urinating.
The family said that the doctors also informed them that there had been massive internal bleeding observed in the brain during surgery.
“We are now awaiting the forensic findings. If the hospital could provide the reports in our presence, allowing us to review them before they are handed over to the police, it would reassure us.”
She said, “My husband lost his life in police custody, and till now we have not received answers that make sense. As a family, we are heartbroken and still searching for the truth. We are requesting for a fair investigation so that justice can be served.”
“No family should have to go through this confusion and pain,” she added.
The grieving wife, who is pregnant and nearing her due date, said the emotional and physical stress has been overwhelming.
“In this situation, I needed my husband’s support. My family and in-laws are helping me, but the physical support my husband would have provided accompanying me for check-ups and other needs is not the same,” she said.
Legal views
The Bhutanese talked to a legal expert who on the condition of anonymity said that the family’s call for an external investigation stem from the need for the highest standards of transparency and accountability in this case involving death under police custody.
The legal expert shared that engaging an independent agency would ensures that the process is fair and free from conflict of interest. This not only enhances public trust, but is particularly important given the unanswered questions and inconsistencies already noted by the family.
Also, the legal expert said that allowing the family to review the forensic findings before they are handed over to the police is also crucial for fairness and transparency.
The legal expert said that such openness is essential, not only for the affected family but also for maintaining public confidence in law enforcement institutions.
Meanwhile law student, Thinley Tobgay, in the fourth year at the Jigme Singye Wangchuck School of Law shared his legal analysis of the case based on reports by this paper. He said the case not only raise profound questions about lawful procedure but also strike at the heart of our constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and human dignity.
Thinley said the arrest and detention were arbitrary because they lacked a lawful and reasonable basis. The power of the arresting Police officer to enter a private dwelling to effect an arrest without a warrant is limited to instances of immediate necessity or other exigent circumstances as per the CCPC.
The police relied exclusively on an unverified allegation made by a detainee already under arrest for drug possession, even though a complete search of the man’s dwelling produced no contraband or incriminating material.
“Arresting and holding a person without corroborating evidence violates fundamental principles of reasonable suspicion under Bhutanese Civil and Criminal Procedure. Further arbitrariness is evident in the fact that the deceased was kept in custody during a government holiday when no case follow-up could occur, effectively leaving him in a legal void without judicial oversight or procedural progress. His family was not properly notified, access was restricted, and assurances of his imminent release proved false.”
He said these factors collectively render the arrest and detention arbitrary under constitutional standards protecting the right to liberty, due process, and freedom from unreasonable detention.
Thinley said that serious evidence of negligence emerges from the circumstances leading to the fatal injury.
He said police admitted that the rear door of the transport van had only a single-rod latch that could be opened with a simple push from inside. Despite knowing this structural weakness, no officer accompanied the detainee in the rear cabin. The justification that they “trusted” him because he had cooperated throughout the investigation is untenable. Reasonable custodial care requires anticipating risk, not dismissing it.
The prime eyewitness reported that the van was “speeding” recklessly, despite there being no operational emergency, and he observed the officers in the front cabin “conversing” with their windows closed, unaware of what was happening behind them.
If the detainee had actually jumped by forcing the rear door open, the police officers in the front cabin should reasonably have heard the sound of the latch being broken or the door swinging open and could have stopped immediately.
“However, the fact that they neither heard the rear door open nor responded to the prime witness’s calls portrays a complete failure to pay attention to the detainee’s safety and movements. Further, this indicates a complete lack of real-time monitoring of a detainee in a moving vehicle,” said Thinley.
He said the inconsistency in police accounts regarding whether the detainee jumped or fell, the positioning of the handcuffs, and the nature of the injury further undermines the credibility of their explanation and suggests potential procedural flaws or omissions.
The fact that the deceased’s wife was taken to the alleged accident site nearly a week later, where she was shown a questionable blood stain raises concerns about scene preservation, investigative integrity, and the reliability of the police narrative.
“Taken together, these facts show that the State failed to maintain safe custodial conditions, failed to supervise the detainee during transport, and failed to ensure basic standards of care, thereby constituting negligence in violation of the State’s legal duty to protect the life and safety of individuals in custody.”
Thinley said that in light of these circumstances, the need for an independent and impartial inquiry is not simply advisable; it is essential.
“Only a transparent investigation conducted outside the internal chain of command can properly examine whether the arrest was lawful, whether custodial protocols were followed, whether the injury was the result of negligence or misconduct, and whether constitutional rights were violated.”
Thinley Tobgay pointed out that an internal review alone cannot meet the threshold of impartiality required when a life has been lost while under the exclusive control of the State.
