Supervisory Police Position At Time Of Custodial Assault Doesn't Itself Establish Criminal Liability: MP High Court

The bench of Justice Alok Awasthi observed:

"This Court also takes note of the distinction between custodial responsibility and individual criminal liability. The fact that an accused was holding a supervisory Police position at the relevant time is a relevant circumstance, but such status by itself cannot substitute for proof of the ingredients of the particular of an alleged against that accused".

An appeal was filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, challenging the order of the Special Judge wherein the accused's application for regular bail was rejected. It was stated that the accused has been in custody since October 5, 2025, for murder (Section 103), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 115), and wrongful confinement (Section 127).

A written complaint was filed regarding the death of Deva. After inquest proceedings, a judicial inquiry was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class into the death of the deceased prisoner under suspicious and unusual circumstances.

The judicial inquiry revealed that the deceased prisoner had died under unusual circumstances as a result of torture and neglect during police custody. Therefore, a case was registered against the accused and also against 7-8 other police officers.

Accordingly, in compliance with the Supreme Court order in Hansura Bai v. State of MP, the investigation was handed over to the CBI. After completion, the CBI filed a charge sheet against co-accused Devraj, Juber Khan, and Gajraj Singh Yadav and a supplementary challan against absconding accused Sanjeet Singh Mavai and Uttam Singh.

The counsel for the appellant argued that he was on official VIP duty on the date of the incident and that he was not present at the police station.

The counsel for the CBI argued that there was sufficient oral, documentary, and digital evidence available demonstrating the involvement of the appellant.

The court noted that the deceased was taken into custody on July 13 while the appellant was on duty out of town and returned to the police station on July 14. The court noted that in the appellant's absence, the deceased was "being subjected to continuous interrogation by several Police officers and many physical assaults during that period is also a possibility".

The court noted that the appellant was accused on the grounds that he participated in, facilitated, directed, or failed to prevent the acts. However, the court also noted that the appellant has been in custody for one year and that the chargesheet was filed. Therefore, the bench held that custodial interrogation of the appellant was no longer required.

The court further noted that the prosecution's case is based on documentary material, CCTV recording, official records, medical evidence and statements of witnesses. In the present case, the court noted that since the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed, the appellant should be granted bail.

For Appellant: Senior Counsel Vivek Singh with Advocate Gagan Bajad

For CBI: Advocates Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Aniruddha Dwivedi

For Respondent no 2: Advocates Sagar Soni and Payoshi Roy