The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The death of 33-year-old Biren Kumar Kafley in police custody is one of those cases that tests public trust in law enforcement, institutional transparency, and the rule of law itself. The Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) and its Narcotics Division have given their version of events that Biren attempted to escape, opened the jail-van door, and fell to his death.
But some unanswered questions have led to suspicion at a time when clarity is essential.
To the police’s credit, they have acknowledged procedural lapses. Biren was left unaccompanied at the back of the van. The door mechanism was a simple single-rod latch that could be pushed open. The escort team did not expect a cooperative suspect to flee. Yet the very purpose of custody is to ensure the safety of the detainee, regardless of their criminal history or apparent cooperation. When police custody ends in death, the burden of proof lies squarely with the RBP and not the family.
The wife’s account raises some issues. These are the absence of abrasions, wet clothing, and delayed communication about her husband’s condition. Confusion over whether the handcuffs were locked in front or behind, and inconsistencies about the purpose of the escort trip, only added to the family’s distress.
The police investigation into their own officers is welcome, but insufficient. Custodial deaths require independent scrutiny, ideally by the Office of the Attorney General or an empowered oversight body and not internal reviews by the very institution involved.
It would have been better if there was better access. The Bhutanese was allowed to see only the outside of the van, not the inside to test the escape theory. Eyewitnesses identified by police declined to speak. CCTV footages of Biren’s condition before the alleged jump has not been shared with the family.
Bhutan’s laws allow arrests without warrants for drug-related offences, and the larger NDOVD operation appears to have successfully disrupted a supply chain. But operational success cannot overshadow custodial accountability.
This case now stands as a test of institutional integrity. The family deserves full transparency, access to forensic findings, and independent verification of police claims.