The Allahabad High Court on Thursday sought a status report on the magisterial inquiry ordered in the Kasganj custodial death case, in which 22-year-old Altaf was killed [Chand Miyan v. State of Uttar Pradesh]..A Division Bench of Justices Anjani Kumar Mishra and Deepak Verma ordered the government advocate to file a status report of the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate by February 8..The Court was hearing a plea moved by Chand Miyan, the father of Altaf, who contended that he has no faith in the State Police and its investigation into the matter. He thus prayed for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Court-monitored investigation.He also sought compensation of ₹1 crore. An interim application was also filed before the Court seeking a second post-mortem of Altaf, along with CCTV footage of the police station where the incident took place..On November 10 last year, the district administration of Kasganj ordered a magisterial inquiry into the alleged custodial death of Altaf. The police, however, had claimed that he had committed suicide in the toilet of the Kasganj station. Pursuant to the inquiry, five policemen were suspended.On December 23, 2021, the High Court had ordered the Superintendent of Police, Kasganj to file a counter affidavit in the matter. After finding that no affidavit was filed, on February 2, the Court had warned the Kasganj SP to file the affidavit by the next day, failing which it would impose heavy costs..Today, the government advocate informed the Court that the affidavit was filed, but had not come on record. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned..On December 13 last year, the High Court had issued notice in a plea seeking the establishment of fast-track police courts in Uttar Pradesh in the wake of the custodial death of Altaf.The Court directed the petitioner, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), to delete from its petition all cited examples of custodial violence from other states. A Bench headed by Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal said that doing so would create confusion for the Court, and that the State would not be able to reply on such examples.