Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the State of Madhya Pradesh for not suspending two police officers allegedly responsible for the custodial death of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi, even though they have not shown up for duty for five months.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a contempt petition filed by the mother of 26-year-old Deva Pardhi regarding his death while in custody of the Madhya Pradesh police. The Supreme Court had on May 15, 2025 ordered CBI to arrest all officers responsible for the incident within one month.

“You are colluding with them...You have been searching for them since April why you haven't suspended them?”, Justice R Mahadevan said.

Notably, the two officers were suspended yesterday, only after the Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the CBI over its failure to trace and arrest them, despite a court order.

“Why yesterday? You say they are absconding since April. This means you are protecting them”, Justice Nagarathna said.

On Tuesday, the Court pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation for failing to arrest two of the police officers accused in the case, Sanjit Singh Mawai and Uttam Singh Kushwaha, who, according to CBI, have been absconding since April 2025.

Unconvinced with CBI's explanation for not arresting the two officers, the Court on Tuesday directed the CBI to file a status report on the steps taken to trace and arrest them and directed officers concerned with the investigation to file affidavits by today.

Today, Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare informed the Court that CBI had undertaken steps to trace the two officers including physical surveillance, tracking financial transactions, looking for their vehicles on tolls and scrutinising social media accounts. He claimed that these steps had not yielded results.

The bench was not convinced by the CBI's efforts. Justice Nagarathna said, "What is the meaning of this? This is all eyewash."

Thakare further said that CBI issued a reward of ₹2 lakh for credible information on their whereabouts, and raided all their known hideouts. Justice Nagarathna said that CBI needs to take stringent measures. "That will not help. Stringent measures you have to take", she

The Court was also informed that the two officers had been suspended only yesterday, prompting the bench to question why this action had not been taken earlier.

Justice Nagarathna remarked that the continued failure to act amounted to contempt of the Supreme Court order.

Advocate Payoshi Roy for the petitioner opposed the CBI's claim that the two officers cannot be traced. She said that one of the officers had physically signed and notarised an affidavit in Gwalior in an anticipatory bail application filed by him.

Justice Nagarathna questioned how the officer could have filed an anticipatory bail application when there is a Supreme Court direction to arrest him.

“What happened to his anticipatory bail hearing? Have you gone and spoken to the Advocate who appeared for him? Wasn't the state involved in the anticipatory bail? What did the government pleader advise? They could have arrested him”, she asked.

Roy highlighted that the officers received salaries till yesterday despite the CBI's claim that they are absconding.

Justice Mahadevan said, “This is contempt of order of Supreme Court by the state of Madhya Pradesh. Officers are not coming on duty for so many months and you keep silent?”

The Standing Counsel for the state submitted that the investigation was transferred to CBI and the direction to arrest was given to CBI.

Justice Mahadevan did not accept this contention. He noted that though the Home Secretary of the state had earlier been deleted from the parties in the contempt petition, the state was very much a party to the order of which contempt is alleged.

He added, “There was no such order that only CBI can arrest. If an officer of your government is involved you cannot wash your hands of it.”

The standing counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh acknowledged the Court's concerns regarding salaries and absconding officers and sought time to take instructions. At his request, ultimately the court kept the matter tomorrow at 10 am.

“Okay we are not saying anything now. Let us see tomorrow what state of Madhya Pradesh will say. Best thing you can say is 'we have arrested both of them'”, Justice Nagarathna said. The Court re-arrayed the State of Madhya Pradesh as a respondent in the case.

During Tuesday's hearing, the bench had repeatedly questioned the CBI about its inability to arrest the two officers. It also noted the threat to Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness to the incident and uncle of Deva Pardhi, who remains in judicial custody.

The Court had warned the CBI that it would be held accountable if anything untoward happened to Gangaram Pardhi. “We will not spare you if anything untoward happens to Gangaram Pardhi…There cannot be a second custodial death otherwise we will take it seriously”, Justice Nagarathna had said.

Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 594/2025

Case Title – Hansura Bai v. Hanuman Prasad Meena