The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed the Madhya Pradesh Police for not making any arrests in the alleged custodial torture and killing of a man last July, describing it as an example of “favouritism” where the state police was “shielding” its own officers.
“Sad state of affairs in this country, that the vice of custodial violence continues unabated despite repeated judgments by this court and the offenders roam free. Horrendous! And you try to eliminate the sole witness, that’s the best way to get away with the crime,” Justice Sandeep Mehta said.
A division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Mehta were hearing a plea for bail to Gangaram Pardhi, the uncle of 25-year-old Deva Pardhi, who died after being arrested in MP’s Guna district on July 13 last year.
Deva had been making last-minute preparations for his baraat when he and Gangaram were arrested in a case of alleged theft. Later that night, Deva’s family was informed that he had died.
Deva’s family rejected the police claim that he had died of a heart attack.
Gangaram, the sole eyewitness of the case, was subsequently sent to Guna district jail in judicial custody and, facing five FIRs on charges of theft and burglary, he continues to be in custody. The bail petition, challenging the Madhya Pradesh HC refusing bail to Gangaram, was filed by Deva’s mother.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the state, furnished a sealed-cover status report on the investigation so far and said the probe was ongoing and will take another month to complete. No arrests had been made so far, Bhati said, but added that “two of the officers have been shifted to line duty”.
Story continues below this ad
“That’s a great response to a case of custodial death,” Justice Mehta remarked. “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?”
“This is ridiculous, this is an inhumane approach, absolutely! Man dies in custody, it takes you 10 months to lay hands on your own officers? Why did you send them to line duty, what reason? Their complicity has been found true, why have they not been arrested?… you’re trying to shift it to… shock because of aspiration of some solid substance? Can there be a better cover-up act? Where’s the injuries described in this report?” Justice Mehta said.
Bhati said, “I can’t run away from the facts. One of the doctors has said (Deva’s death) is due to injuries on the body.”
Justice Mehta then said, “Where are the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report? That’s really horrible. A 25-year old young boy, killed by custodial violence, not a single injury seen on the body by the medical jurist? The opinion is a heart attack?” Bhati clarified that the report mentions eight injuries noticed on the body.
Story continues below this ad
While the petitioner’s counsel, advocate Payoshi Roy, requested the court to grant bail to Gangaram, Justice Mehta said: “Presently being in custody is better for his own health and safety. He comes out, he is run over by a lorry and it will be an accident and you’ll lose the single witness. Instances are not uncommon.”
