The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Madhya Pradesh government for failing to arrest police officers accused in the custodial death of a 25-year-old tribal youth despite a categorical order in May that they be taken into custody within a month [Hansura Bai & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors].

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stopped short of summoning the Chief Secretary of the State and kept the case for hearing tomorrow at 10 am on repeated requests of the State's standing counsel.

The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by deceased man's mother, Hansurabai, alleging wilful disobedience of the Court’s directions.

From the very outset, the Bench expressed displeasure at the State’s inaction, pointing out that the accused officers had not been suspended for months and yet continued to draw salaries.

Justice Mahadevan remarked that the conduct of the authorities showed complicity with the accused.

“You suspended only yesterday. The direction was to the State also. Continuously you are searching them. Why didn’t you suspend them? You are colluding with the officials. If you were willing, you could produce them in no time,” the judge said.

Justice Nagarathna added that the State appeared to be shielding its own men and raised concerns over the sole eyewitness, the deceased's uncle Gangaram Pardhi, who remained under threat.

Gangaram is currently in judicial custody after he was arrested in other cases.

“They are your own men that’s why. What is the health condition of the eye witness? We don’t want another custodial death. You have not suspended them. Even though they have not attended office from April. What is the meaning of that? Why are you showing favouritism to them? What have you done in this case?” Justice Nagarathna asked.

Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, appearing for the CBI, submitted that the accused had been declared proclaimed offenders and their financial transactions and movements were being tracked through toll cameras and GPS surveillance.

Advocate Payushi Roy, appearing for the petitioner, countered that such measures were inadequate and stressed that the officers were still at large despite the clear mandate of the Court.

When the bench enquired about anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused officers, Roy informed the Court that their pleas had been rejected by the lower courts.

This prompted Justice Nagarathna to pull up the State for allowing salaries to be paid to absconding officers.

“This is contempt of the orders of this Court by the Madhya Pradesh government. The inspector is not attending duty since April. And you just kept quiet. We are in September and you are paying salary to him?” Justice Nagarathna asked.

Roy further pointed out that the officers’ properties were attached only after contempt proceedings were initiated.

Justice Mahadevan rejected the State’s defence that it was not a party to the contempt petition, reminding it that the May order was binding.

“You are saying you were not arrayed as a party in the contempt. But the order passed in May, it had the State as a party. The direction may be to the CBI to arrest, but how can you pay salary till yesterday?” Justice Mahadevan said.

When the standing counsel for Madhya Pradesh sought to explain that an inquiry would be conducted into why salaries had been released, Justice Mahadevan was categorical.

“There can’t be any circumstances,” the judge said.

The ASG informed the bench that a cash reward of ₹2 lakh had been announced for each of the absconding officers and that notices had been published in newspapers.

But Justice Nagarathna dismissed the move as insufficient.

“That doesn’t help at all. You have to take stringent steps and trace them,” she said.

The bench also questioned why the State and the CBI had visited “all places except where the accused are,” terming the status report unsatisfactory. The judges warned that they may summon the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh to explain the lapses directly.

The case arose from the custodial death of Deva Pardhi in July 2024. Deva was allegedly tortured to death by police officials of Myana Police Station after being taken into custody during a pre-wedding ceremony. His uncle Gangaram, the sole eyewitness, was also brutally assaulted, detained and implicated in multiple cases to discredit his testimony.

In May this year, the Supreme Court had found the local investigation tainted, ordered the case to be handed over to the CBI, and directed the immediate arrest of the accused within a month. It also stressed protection for Gangaram under the witness protection scheme.

Despite those directions, the principal accused -including Inspector Sanjeet Singh Mawai and sub-inspector Uttam Singh Kushwaha, remain at large, prompting the family to initiate contempt proceedings.

The bench will resume hearing the matter tomorrow.