'Man Dies In Custody & No Arrest For 10 Months! Shielding Your Own Officers' : Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh Police

The Supreme Court today(April 29) passed strong oral remarks against the State of Madhya Pradesh for not arresting the police officers allegedly involved in the custodial torture and murder of one 25-year-old Deva Pardhi. The Court remarked that the State was trying to shield the police officials. As per the petition filed by Deva's mother, Deva was arrested in relation to a case of theft along with his uncle, Gangara, who remains in judicial custody. It is the case of the petitioner that his son was brutally tortured and killed by the police. Whereas, the police say the deceased died of a heart attack. Article 32 petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a full and fair investigation and handing over the case to CBI or SIT. Bail is also sought to Gangaram, who is said to be the sole eyewitness to the case.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is hearing the plea, challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order refusing to grant bail to Gangaram. It today reserved the matter for judgment.When the Court was informed today about the status of the Magistarerial Inquiry against the serving police officers by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, including that the two officers in question have been shifted to line duty, the Court questioned the seriousness of the State and expressed that it is a sad state of affairs that no arrest has taken place.Justice Mehta said: "Great response to a case of custodial death! What better example of favouritism, shielding your own officers. Would you like yourself to be appointed as amicus or appointed on behalf of CBI to take over the case? Rather than representing the State police. Ridiculous and inhumane approach. Absolutely. Man dies in your custody and it takes you 10 months to lay hands on your own officers. Why did you send them to line duty? For what reason? Their complicity has been found true, why they are not been arrested?"He further said. "For the 10 months time you have not been able to arrest a single person. This reflects on your competence. What is the provision of law under which the FIR has been registered?"Justice Mehta also remarked that the State tried to shift the burden by stating by saying that some substance was found in the body of the deceased. "Can there be a better cover-up act?."Reading the postmortem report of the deceased, Justice Mehta added: "A 25-year-old boy killed by custodial violence and not a single injury on the body seen by the medical jurist? You say he died of a heart attack? Bruises all over the body. Sad state of affairs in this country that vice of custodial violence continues unabated despite repeated judgments by this Court, and offenders roam free. Horrendous. And you try to eliminate the sole witness."At this point, the Counsel representing Gangaram, Advocate Payoshi Roy, apprised the Court that his reply to bail may be considered. She added that he is the sole witness of this incident and the police continue to harass him by accusing him in one case after another. To this, the Court suggested that it's better for him to remain in jail or the "other side" will attempt to eliminate him if he is released on bail. "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. Instance [like this] are not uncommon...We have even rejected bail petitions on grounds that there is a risk of the life of accused himself. It's always better. You will see instances that the moment the accused came out on bail, he was eliminated by the other side. Don't take that risk. Leave it to the Court," Justice Mehta remarked.Case Details: HANSURA BAI AND ANR. v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR|SLP(Crl) No. 3450/2025

'Man Dies In Custody & No Arrest For 10 Months! Shielding Your Own Officers' : Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh Police

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Sad state of affairs in this country that vice of custodial violence continues unabated despite repeated judgments by this Court, the Court lamented.

Tags