Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail to suspended inspector accused in custodial death case after a year in custody

Deva Pardi died on 14 July 2024 while in police custody after allegedly being beaten and tortured during interrogation at Myana Police Station, Guna.

Following a judicial inquiry, a criminal case was registered against police personnel; the investigation was later transferred to the CBI, which filed a charge sheet against co-accused and a supplementary charge sheet against the appellant and another accused.

The appellant, a police inspector posted at Myana, was alleged to have participated in, facilitated, directed, or failed to prevent the acts leading to the death.

He maintained that he was on official duty in Gwalior during part of the relevant period.

His application for bail under Section 483, as described in the judgment, was rejected by the Special Sessions Judge.

He appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The High Court noted that the appellant had been in custody since 5 October 2025 and that investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

1. Whether, having regard to the allegations of custodial death and the appellant’s supervisory police role, continued detention was necessary pending trial

2. Whether the appellant could be released on bail subject to conditions addressing risks of witness interference, evidence tampering, or non-appearance

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the rejection of the appellant’s bail application.

The Court applied the principle that bail requires a prima facie assessment of the available material and the necessity of continued detention; the bail hearing is not a trial and should not involve a detailed evaluation of evidence.

It further held that the seriousness of an allegation is relevant but is not, by itself, an absolute bar to bail, and that a supervisory position cannot substitute for proof of the accused’s individual criminal liability.

The appellant relied on Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others and The State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar, but the Court did not identify either decision as a basis for its reasoning.

The Court recognized the gravity of a custodial death and the heightened concern arising from the appellant’s position as a police officer.

However, it considered that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, the material witnesses had been identified, and no specific material showed that the appellant was likely to abscond or interfere with evidence if released.

The precise individual acts and criminal liability attributed to him remained matters for trial; his supervisory status alone could not establish them at the bail stage.

The Court concluded that conditions—including restrictions on contact with witnesses and entry to Myana Police Station—could address the identified risks, and that further custody was not necessary to secure the investigation or the appellant’s presence at trial.

The Court stated that its observations were prima facie and would not affect the trial, which must be decided independently on the evidence.

The trial court was directed to endeavour to proceed expeditiously, and the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail for breach of conditions.