Supreme Court directs CBI probe into custodial death, grants liberty to eyewitness to seek bail

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by special leave against the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s December 20, 2024 order which had declined to transfer the investigation into the custodial death of Deva Pardhi and had refused interim bail to the sole eye-witness, Gangaram Pardhi. The appellants  relatives of the eyewitness  challenged the High Court’s refusal and sought transfer of the probe to an independent central agency and release of the eyewitness on bail.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and directed immediate institutional measures. It held that the circumstances surrounding the death and the conduct of the local police created a case for entrusting the investigation to an independent agency. The Court observed the settled principle that “Fair and impartial investigation by an independent agency, not involved in the controversy, is the demand of public interest.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “These circumstances give rise to a clear inference that the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner and there is an imminent possibility of the prosecution being subjugated by the accused if the investigation is left in the hands of the State police, who are apparently shielding their own fellow policemen owing to the camaraderie.” The Court invoked the maxim “nemo judex in causa sua”  “no one should be a judge in his own cause”  and directed that FIR No. 341 of 2024 be transferred forthwith to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It ordered the CBI to register the requisite RC and to ensure a fair, transparent and expeditious probe; the officers found responsible were to be arrested within one month, and the investigation was to be completed within 90 days of arrest. The Court gave Gangaram Pardhi liberty to directly approach the High Court at Gwalior for bail in the subsequent cases in which he was implicated and directed the State to provide witness protection, placing responsibility on the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh.

Background
The dispute arose after an FIR for theft (FIR No. 232 of 2024) at Myana Police Station led to a police raid during the Haldi ceremony of Deva Pardhi on July 13–14, 2024. The appellants alleged that police personnel entered the venue, overpowered, handcuffed and forcibly took Deva Pardhi and his uncle Gangaram to the local police outpost, where both were subjected to severe third-degree torture including being hung upside down, beaten, doused with water and assaulted with chilli powder, petrol, salt and hot water. Deva Pardhi later collapsed and was declared dead at hospital; post-mortem recorded multiple contusions and abrasions, and a later medical opinion gave cause of death as vasovagal shock leading to heart attack. A magisterial inquiry led to registration of FIR No. 341 of 2024 under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including culpable homicide and voluntarily causing hurt; offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other provisions were also added.

The appellants contended that local police impeded a fair probe, influenced medical officers and sought to coerce the sole eye-witness, Gangaram, by implicating him in multiple subsequent criminal cases to keep him in custody and prevent truthful testimony. The High Court accepted the threat perception against Gangaram and ordered his transfer from Guna Jail to Central Jail, Gwalior, but refused to transfer the investigation or grant bail. Relying on precedents including Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and related decisions stressing the need for independent investigation where allegations implicated local police, the Supreme Court found the invocation of transfer warranted in the interest of justice. The Court disposed of the appeal by directing the CBI probe, mandating prompt arrests and a time-bound investigation, granting liberty to Gangaram to seek bail in the High Court, and directing state authorities to ensure his protection. Pending applications stood disposed.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2025 INSC 711; Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3450 of 2025
Case Title: Hansura Bai & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Payoshi Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General (for State of Madhya Pradesh)