The Supreme Court asked to explain the delay in arresting two police officers involved in alleged custody deaths. File | Photo Credit: Hind
On Wednesday (October 8, 2025), the Supreme Court pulled the Central Investigation Office (CBI) and Madhya Pradesh’s government for disproportionate delay in arresting two police officers accused in alleged deaths of 25 -year -old Devy Pardhi, even though the agency informed that the court was finally taken.
The bench of judges BV Nagarathn and R. Mahadevan noted that the arrest was carried out after repeated admonition of the court and issuing a warning of contempt. “We found that the arrest was done because of the strict and strong remarks of this court. The fact remains that the order of 15 May 2025 was not observed and is only according to the petition of contempt and observing the court, which is arrested,” she noted in his order.
The court ordered the CBI and the State Government to submit written explanations in detail the reasons for the delay in making its order on May 15, which required both officers to be arrested within one month of transferring the case to CBI. The matter will be heard on 6 November, when the court will consider their affidavit.
Another general lawyer Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, who appeared for CBI, reported the bench that the agency had arrested two accused officers, inspectors UTTAM SINGH Kushwaha and Sanjiv Singh Mawai. He claimed that the former was arrested 27. September in Indore, while the second was taken to custody 5th October from Shivpuri.
“Explanation”
Although it took note of the arrest, the bench expressed a sharp disagreement with the extended delay in making its order. “Why couldn’t you arrest them all these days? There is no need to follow the Supreme Court’s order. Because we said we would ask the main secretary to be present today, you acted. You explain why it happened.
Judge Mahadevan also tried to know what measures in the department started against these two officers. At the previous date of the hearing, the court expressed its displeasure that the duo was suspended from the service of only 24 September, although it took over five months. He noted that the accused officers “even asked for a preliminary bail, despite the clear order of this court, that they should be arrested,” he said that there must be “specific measures” against them.
Thus, the Court asked the state to approve it at the next date of hearing on measures taken against these two officials.
During the proceedings of lawyer Payoshi Roy, who appeared for the petitioner, he informed the bench that the only eyewitness in the case of the Uncle of Gangarama Pardhi was rejected by the basic communication rights. “We moved the prison authorities that brought him permission to call his family. The answer was that only if there is a court order, a permit would be granted,” she said.
Mrs. Roy further said that after the death of the custody, ten firs were filed against Mr. Pardhi and that he had been arrested in seven of them since then, allegedly to push him to withdraw the action for contempt.
Justice Nagarathna observed with a significant disagreement: “They (accused officers) may ask for bail, but why should there be a need for a court order to allow a phone call? This is an attitude!” The bench therefore ordered the authorities to ensure that the witness could communicate with its family members.
The deceased was taken into custody together with his uncle in July 2024 in connection with the case of theft. While the police claimed to have died of a heart attack, his mother claimed that he was tortured to death. 15.
Published – 8 October 2025 12:23
