Supreme Court Questions MP Police Over Lack Of Arrests In Custodial Death Case, Flags Prejudice Against Pardhi Tribe Members

The Supreme Court yesterday (April 22) expressed concerns over the practice of misusing the social stigma against Pardhi Community persons and wrongly roping them in criminal cases in several districts of Madhya Pradesh. The Court also questioned the State over the lack of arrests in a case related to the alleged custodial death of a Pardhi community member.The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a challenge to the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to grant bail to a sole eyewitness in a custodial death case of a Pardhi man. The eyewitness who has been charged with various offences after the incident was allegedly being tortured by police to turn hostile. When the counsel for the State stressed that the eyewitness was involved in 14 cases which are registered against him, Justice Mehta emphasized the need to understand that often people from the Pardhi community in various regions of the State are wrongly roped into criminal cases. Justice Mehta verbally said: "Do you have some idea of the background of his caste and how such people are entangled in these cases?" "In the adjoining areas of the district in MP, it is a rampant practice to involve these people in as many cases as you can." Notably, the Pardhi community is given a Scheduled Tribe status in several districts of Madhya Pradesh. From a historical context, the Pardhi Community was often harassed during the Colonial period and labelled as criminal under the Criminal Tribes Act 1871. While this Act was repealed in 1952, the stigma attached to the Pardhi community still persists. Justice Mehta further inquired about the averments made in the FIRs against the eyewitness. He expressed how most of the time the police would charge such persons with the offence of theft or take advantage of the penal provisions relating to the offence of dacoity under S. 399 and S.400 IPC."When was he first arrested? Is he named in any of the FIRs? he would not be , it would be all FIRs of theft so far as my information goes...mostly theft, then you have that weapon of S. 399-400...paanch aadmi baith kar baat kar rahe the?! standard practice." The Counsel for the petitioner informed that the sole eyewitness happens to be the uncle of the custodial deceased. She added, " The startling thing is that the magisterial enquiry report holding that it is a homicidal death, it was signed in September last year, an FIR was registered....we have an eye witness mylords. It just says 7 police officers ....from September 2024 we are now in April 2025 mylords, not a single police officer has been arrested. There is an FIR under S. 302". When the court inquired into the veracity of the claim of the petitioner over non-arrest of the named officers in the main FIR relating to the custodial death, the counsel for the State said that he would take instructions in that regard. The Court passed the following order, while showing an inclination towards summoning the DGP and Home Secretary of Madhya Pradesh : "Very serious allegation has been made by the petitioner that despite there being a named FIR under S. 302 based upon an inquiry report of the magistrate, although FIR was registered but no further action has been taken on the same, and no arrest has been made.""We were inclined to summon the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of the State, when Mr Joshi made a request that two days time may be granted for instructions in the matter and thereafter the Court may consider calling the officers.""List this matter again on Friday. Mr Joshi to obtain instructions in the matter." BackgroundBefore the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking full and fair investigation of the offence regarding brutal torture, sexual abuse and murder of one Deva Pardi, who is the son of the petitioner, by the police officials of Myana Police Station and Jhagar Chowki. The petitioner also sought the handing over of the investigation to the CBI or to get it conducted by the Special Investigation Team. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed an application on behalf of the sole eyewitness to the said custodial death- Gangu alias Gangaram, who was allegedly being harassed by the police officials. As per the petitioner, Gangu informed that on December 13, 2024, he was taken to the Govt Civil Hospital, where he was beaten up by escort guards in the van, was stripped naked and beaten again in the hospital to pressurise him to turn hostile in the case. In light of the same, the petitioner had sought an interim bail to be granted to Gangu in respect of the FIRs registered against him. Apart from the aforesaid relief, it had also been prayed that police personnels shall be restrained from contacting the petitioner or their family members and even Gangaram in any way directly or indirectly and in alternate to transfer Gangaram to house arrest and get him examined, also to call the CCTV footage of the entrance of Government...

Supreme Court Questions MP Police Over Lack Of Arrests In Custodial Death Case, Flags Prejudice Against Pardhi Tribe Members

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Questions MP Police Over Lack Of Arrests In Custodial Death Case, Flags Prejudice Against Pardhi Tribe Members

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers