The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh Police for not arresting officers allegedly involved in the custodial torture and death of a 25-year-old man, Deva Pardhi. The incident occurred ten months ago, yet no action has been taken against the accused officers. The court questioned the intent and seriousness of the state in dealing with such a grave matter.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines Fresh Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act, Allows Intervention in Ongoing Case
The case was brought to the Court by Deva's mother, who claimed her son was brutally tortured and killed by the police after being arrested in connection with a theft case. Deva’s uncle, Gangaram, who was arrested along with him, is currently in judicial custody and is said to be the only eyewitness to the incident. The petition filed under Article 32 sought a fair investigation by a neutral agency such as the CBI or a Special Investigation Team. It also requested bail for Gangaram.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reserved the judgment after hearing the plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to deny bail to Gangaram.
When the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the two police officers involved were merely shifted to line duty and not arrested, the Court responded sharply.
“Great response to a case of custodial death! What better example of favouritism, shielding your own officers," said Justice Sandeep Mehta.
He questioned why the officers were not arrested when their involvement had already been found. Expressing deep concern over the inaction, Justice Mehta remarked:
Read Also:- Supreme Court Says Owning Spyware Not Illegal; Real Question is Who It's Used Against in Pegasus Case
“Man dies in your custody, and it takes you 10 months to lay hands on your own officers. Ridiculous and inhumane approach.”
The Court was also critical of the argument that the deceased died of a heart attack. Justice Mehta, referring to the postmortem report, highlighted that the body had multiple bruises, contradicting the claim.
“A 25-year-old boy killed by custodial violence and not a single injury seen by the medical jurist? Bruises all over the body. And you say he died of a heart attack? Horrendous.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Denies Bail to Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt in 1990 Custodial Death Case
He added that the explanation given by the state, suggesting that some substance was found in the victim’s body, was nothing but a cover-up attempt.
The situation turned more worrying when the counsel for Gangaram stated that he was being repeatedly harassed with new charges to silence him, being the sole witness in the case. The Court expressed concern over his safety, suggesting it might be better for him to remain in custody.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Prosecution Cannot Use Police Statements to Contradict Court Witness, But Court Can
“Presently, being in custody is better for your own health and safety. When he comes out, he is run over by a lorry and you won’t even know. It will be an accident and you will lose the single witness,” Justice Mehta observed.
The Court also pointed out that such eliminations of witnesses are not uncommon and emphasized the importance of protecting Gangaram until the trial progresses.
Case Details: HANSURA BAI AND ANR. v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR|SLP(Crl) No. 3450/2025
