The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted regular bail to suspended police inspector Sanjeet Singh Mavai in connection with the custodial death of Deva Pardi, ruling that holding a supervisory police position does not by itself establish individual criminal liability for the death. Justice Alok Awasthi, hearing a criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observed that the status of a supervisory officer cannot substitute for proof of the specific ingredients of the offence alleged against that accused.

The case stems from the death of Deva Pardi, who was taken into police custody on July 13, 2024, in connection with a burglary case. A judicial inquiry conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna, found that the death occurred under suspicious and unusual circumstances resulting from beating, torture, or neglect during interrogation by the Station House Officer and seven to eight policemen. Based on the inquiry, a case was registered under various sections of the BNS, 2023, including murder, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement, and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Custodial Death and Judicial Inquiry

Following the death, the victim's family approached the Supreme Court, which by order dated May 15, 2025, transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The CBI filed a charge sheet against co-accused Devraj, Juber Khan, and Gajraj Singh Yadav, and a supplementary charge sheet against absconding accused Sanjeet Singh Mavai and Uttam Singh on December 23, 2025. Mavai, who was posted as Inspector at Police Station Myana at the relevant time, had been in custody since October 5, 2025.

The appellant argued through senior counsel that he was on official VIP duty at Gwalior for the "Viksit Bharat" program on July 13 and 14, 2024, and was not present at the police station when the alleged torture occurred. The Call Detail Record summary revealed continuous communication between the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police and another officer during the torture window, suggesting the appellant's absence. The prosecution case, however, alleged that Mavai participated in, facilitated, directed, or failed to prevent the acts that resulted in the death.

Court Distinguishes Supervisory Role from Individual Liability

The court took note of the serious nature of custodial death allegations but emphasized that bail consideration requires a prima facie assessment of the material. "This Court also takes note of the distinction between custodial responsibility and individual criminal liability . The fact that an accused was holding a supervisory Police position at the relevant time is a relevant circumstance, but such status by itself cannot substitute for proof of the ingredients of the particular of an alleged against that accused," Justice Awasthi observed.

The court noted that the deceased was taken into custody on July 13 when Mavai was out of town, and he returned only on July 14 at 2.30 PM. During his absence, the deceased was subjected to continuous interrogation by several police officers, and physical assaults during that period remained a possibility. The court found that the appellant was not the sole officer responsible, and no direct independent eyewitness account other than Gangu alias Gangaram attributed the fatal act specifically to Mavai. Medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the particular act alleged against the appellant was the immediate cause of death.

The court also highlighted that co-accused Devraj, who was present at the police station during the arrest and involved in the assault, had already been granted bail. The period of custody served by Mavai was longer than that of Devraj. No identification parade had been conducted for Mavai, who was referred to solely by the alias "Teen Phool Wale." The burden of proving that his arrival and departure times were fabricated rested with the prosecution.

Bail Granted with Strict Conditions

The court noted that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was no longer required. The material witnesses had been identified, and their statements recorded. The prosecution failed to demonstrate specific material showing that Mavai would destroy evidence or abscond if released on bail. While the possibility of influencing witnesses could not be ignored given his position as a police officer, the court held that such apprehension could be substantially addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

"Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge sheet, the nature of the material presently available against him and the possibility of adequately protecting the prosecution case through stringent conditions, this Court is of the considered view that continued incarceration of the appellant, at this stage, is not necessary for the purposes of investigation or securing his presence in the trial," Justice Awasthi concluded.

The court directed that Mavai be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the trial court on every date, no direct or indirect contact with prosecution witnesses, prohibition from entering the premises of Police Station Myana except with prior court permission, surrender of passport, and cooperation with trial proceedings. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings. The observations made in the order were prima facie and confined solely to the bail adjudication, and the trial court was to decide the case independently based on evidence.