SC pulls up MP govt for delayed suspension of two officers in custodial death case

“Continuously you are searching for them. Why didn’t you suspend them? You are colluding with the officials. If you are really willing, you can produce them before this court in no time,” said Justice Mahadevan.

“You have not suspended them even though they have not attended office since April. What is the meaning of that? Why are you showing favouritism to them? Any other police inspector, if he does not appear, you will give them a memo, notice. Then what have you done in this case?” Justice Nagarathna asked.

The SC bench was hearing a contempt plea by the kin of the deceased 26-year-old Deva Pardhi who was detained along with his uncle Gangaram Pardhi in July 2024 and allegedly tortured, leading to his death.

While transferring the investigation in the case to the CBI, the SC had on May 15, 2025 directed that “the police officials found responsible for the custodial death shall be arrested forthwith and not later than a period of one month…”.

However, with the duo not arrested, the kin approached the SC once again with a contempt of court application.

Hearing the application on September 23, the bench asked the CBI why the accused were yet to be arrested and warned that it “will not spare” the investigators if anything untoward happens to the eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi.

On Thursday, the CBI filed a report of the status of the investigation and told the bench that the accused officers had not been attending office since April and were suspended from service on September 24, Wednesday.

This surprised the bench which questioned why they were not suspended earlier.

“Only yesterday? What were they doing from April? Why are you protecting them?… Somebody is not working for last five months, what steps have you taken?” Justice Nagarathna asked the counsel for the state.

“No this cannot be accepted at all. The date of order is May 15, 2025. But you people are suspending him only from yesterday. This itself is contempt. We will call the chief secretary here. We will issue notice. We will proceed with contempt. Let this case be an example for all the cases connected therewith related to these type of offences… We will come down heaving in this matter,” said Justice Mahadevan.

Justice Nagarathna told the state counsel, “they are your own men. That’s why.”

Justice Mahadevan said: “The state has to answer. If not for the efforts of the petitioner counsel, the case would have been adjourned by 3-4 months and your people would continue searching for the officer who is absconding.”

Justice Nagarathna said that “what is done is an eye wash” and asked if the accused could not be traced with their mobile phones.

The counsel for CBI said the agency had placed the phones of the accused and their kin on surveillance, and also checked their financial transactions and social media profiles to find out their whereabouts but the efforts have been unsuccessful so far.

Countering the CBI’s claims, advocate Payoshi Roy, appearing for the petitioners, said one of the officers had moved for anticipatory bail in Gwalior in August and signed and notarised an affidavit for this.

She pointed out that the two officers had been receiving salary till Wednesday.

An upset bench turned to the state counsel and asked, “They have not been attending duty since April and you pay them salary till yesterday?”

The state’s counsel submitted that they were not made a party in the contempt petition and that the investigation was handed over to the CBI which had to arrest the accused.

But Justice Mahadvevan pointed out that the state was very much a party in the May 15, 2025 order. “So the direction was to you only. This order is known to you. The direction may be to the CBI to arrest, (but) then how can you pay them salary till yesterday?”

The judge added: “You (state police) could have arrested. When there is a crime, you cannot wash away. When you are a party, you are bound to comply.”

Justice Nagarathna said the CBI’s status report “is not satisfactory…we did this, we went there, we recorded, You will go to all the places except the place where they are there and record statements and file a status report.”

“If this is what they do to a SC judgement, in a serious case of custodial death!” she said.

Justice Mahadevan told the state counsel: “We are not finding fault with you on the investigation aspect. You are protecting the officer who was directed to be arrested. That’s all. He is having guts to file an application seeking anticipatory bail against the order of the Supreme Court?”

On the request of the state’s counsel, the bench decided to adjourn the matter till Friday to hear what the state had to say.

“Let us see tomorrow what the state of Madhya Pradesh will say. The best thing you can say is we have arrested both of them,” Justice Nagarathna said.

From the homepage

‘Advising tourists to stay put until rescued’: As flood toll crosses 14, Mamata opens 24/7 control room, to visit Darjeeling tomorrow

IND-W vs PAK-W LIVE Cricket Score, Women’s World Cup 2025: India 247 all out (50 overs) vs Pakistan in Colombo

Bihar Assembly polls to be held before November 22: Election Commission