Supreme Court Transfers Custodial Death Probe to CBI, Orders Arrest of Accused Police Officers Within One Month: “Local Police Cannot Be Judge in Their Own Cause” — Directs Protection and Expedited Bail Hearing for Sole Eyewitness

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court transferred the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and directed that the accused police officials be arrested within one month. It further held that the CBI must complete its investigation within 90 days from the date of arrest.

The Court also permitted Gangaram Pardhi, the sole eyewitness and uncle of the deceased, to approach the High Court for bail in all pending cases, directing the High Court to consider his bail expeditiously in light of the findings. Additionally, the State of Madhya Pradesh was ordered to ensure the witness’s safety both in custody and post-release.

Facts

• On 2 June 2024, a theft involving gold, silver jewellery, and cash was reported in Village Bhidra.
• During a pre-wedding ritual of Deva Pardhi on 13 July 2024, around 30-40 police officers forcibly entered his home, assaulted him and his uncle Gangaram Pardhi, and took them away.
• They were detained at an old police station (without CCTV), subjected to extreme custodial torture involving waterboarding, beating, hanging, and other inhuman treatment.
• Deva Pardhi succumbed to his injuries. The police took him to the hospital where he was declared dead.
• Gangaram Pardhi was produced before a magistrate more than 24 hours later and sent to judicial custody.
• Subsequently, multiple FIRs were filed against the family by the police, including one by the officer involved in the initial detention.
• Post-mortem indicated several injuries, but doctors failed to opine on cause of death immediately, later attributing it to vasovagal shock.
• An FIR under BNS was registered post-magisterial enquiry, but no arrests were made despite serious charges, including culpable homicide.
• The sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, was implicated in multiple cases, which the petitioners alleged was to suppress his testimony.

Issues

1. Whether the custodial death investigation conducted by the local police was fair and unbiased.
2. Whether the custodial witness, Gangaram Pardhi, should be released on bail.
3. Whether the case warranted transfer to an independent agency like the CBI.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The local police were directly implicated in the custodial death and were using their position to shield themselves and harass the family.
• Gangaram Pardhi was being falsely implicated in multiple criminal cases to suppress his testimony.
• The investigation was neither impartial nor progressing, as no arrests were made despite grave charges.
• The continued custody of Gangaram without bail posed a serious risk to his life and his ability to testify.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The State opposed the transfer to the CBI, asserting that the local police were conducting the investigation in accordance with law.
• They admitted that two officers were transferred, but argued that proper steps were underway.
• Argued that threat perception was addressed by shifting Gangaram to a different jail.
• Claimed that Gangaram Pardhi was a habitual offender involved in several criminal cases, and bail was therefore not warranted.
• Suggested that he should seek bail from appropriate court instead of Supreme Court.

Analysis of the Law

The Court applied the legal principle “nemo judex in causa sua” — no one should be a judge in their own cause. It held that the local police investigating their own colleagues undermined public confidence in the investigation. The Court found that the autopsy report, lack of timely arrests, and coercive steps against the eyewitness demonstrated clear bias.

It referred to settled principles that investigations must be fair, independent, and appear credible, especially when accusations are against the investigating agency itself.

Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on:

• Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79, where it was held that “fair and impartial investigation by an independent agency” is necessary when the local police are allegedly involved.
• Mohd. Anis v. Union of India, where doubts over fairness due to involvement of local police justified CBI probe.
• R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that even honest investigations by local police could lack public credibility if those police are accused.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court found:

• No arrests were made in the custodial death case, even eight months after the incident.
• The post-mortem doctors appeared to have been influenced, as they failed to determine the cause of death initially despite visible injuries.
• The police were shielding their own and trying to subvert the course of justice.
• Repeated cases against Gangaram Pardhi appeared designed to prolong his custody and break his resolve.
• The threat to Gangaram’s life was genuine and recognized even by the High Court.

Thus, only a central, independent agency like the CBI could fairly investigate the matter and ensure justice.

Conclusion

The Court:

• Transferred investigation of FIR No. 341 of 2024 to the CBI;
• Directed the CBI to register an RC immediately and complete the investigation within 90 days of arrest;
• Directed that accused police officials be arrested within 1 month;
• Gave liberty to Gangaram Pardhi to approach the High Court for bail in all FIRs registered post-custodial death and directed that such applications be decided expeditiously;
• Directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Director General of Police to ensure complete safety and protection of Gangaram Pardhi, whether in jail or on bail.

Implications

• Sets a strong precedent on judicial intervention in custodial death cases involving potential police cover-up.
• Reinforces the principle of independent investigation, especially when the accused are from the investigating body.
• Affirms witness protection obligations of the State under Indian constitutional and statutory law.
• Provides a template for future cases where police excesses threaten justice, reaffirming that the Supreme Court will act to preserve public confidence in the justice system.

Also Read – Supreme Court Holds Executability of Decree for Permanent Injunction Cannot Be Defeated by Satisfaction in Prior EP—“Such Decree Can Be Enforced Anytime Upon Breach; Successive EPs Maintainable if Interference Recurs”