The Supreme Court on Friday (September 26, 2025) gave the Madhya Pradesh government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) until October 7 to arrest two absconding police officers accused in the custodial death of 25-year-old Deva Pardhi. The court warned that failure to do so would invite contempt and require the State’s Additional Chief Secretary and the CBI’s investigating officer to be present in court the following day.A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan said this was “one last opportunity” for the authorities to implement its May 15 order, which had transferred the probe to the CBI and directed that the accused police officers be arrested within a month.“There is no progress in the implementation of the direction of this court... In view of the ensuing court vacation, we direct that the respondents ensure the compliance of the direction of this court and file an affidavit on or before October 7 by serving a copy of the same to the counsel for the petitioner,” it said. The apex court is on recess next week on account of Dussehra.When additional advocate general for Madhya Pradesh, Nachiketa Joshi, urged the court to dispense with the requirement of personal appearance of the officials, the court said, “We are proceeding rather slowly and cautiously. However, if there is no compliance, let them be ready for framing of charges.” The judges also indicated that they may summon the State’s Director-General of Police if the arrests are not made by the deadline.‘Unimpressed’Mr. Joshi submitted that the accused officers, Inspectors Sanjiv Singh Mawai and Uttam Singh Kushwaha, had been absconding since April, and clarified that their salaries had not been released since May. In the previous hearing, the Bench had taken strong exception to the continued disbursal of salaries despite its arrest order, terming it as “aggravated contempt”.However, the Bench said that it was “unimpressed” with the efforts taken by the State administration. “We want this court’s order mandating the arrest of the officers to be followed. Whether you pay them salaries or you suspend them, that is your lookout. The majesty of this court must be upheld,” it said.Additional Solicitor-General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, appearing for the CBI, said the agency had conducted raids, declared the officers as proclaimed offenders, and mounted surveillance to trace their whereabouts. The Bench, however, retorted, “If these two officers had been private persons, they would have been arrested in no time. Since they are police inspectors, you are finding it difficult to arrest them… That is the long and short of the case.”Justice Mahadevan further pressed the agency on its failure to trace the accused despite their anticipatory bail applications having been filed earlier before a sessions court. “You are unable to find them despite them filing anticipatory bail pleas?” he asked, adding, “Then you put in an affidavit that you are helpless and that you are unable to find them.”Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Payoshi Roy questioned how “the full force” of both the CBI and the State administration had failed to secure the arrests. She also alleged that the sole eyewitness in the case, the victim’s uncle Gangaram Pardhi, had been beaten and threatened in judicial custody to compel the family to withdraw the contempt plea.The Bench had earlier warned the CBI that it would not be spared if anything happened to the witness. “What about the condition of the witness? He has suffered a fracture despite being in custody. We do not want another custodial death,” the judges had said.At one stage, exasperated by the State’s repeated claims of diligence despite its failure to trace the accused, the Bench suggested termination of the officers’ services. “Terminate both the officers, they will automatically surface”, Justice Nagarathna remarked.‘We will frame contempt charges’The deceased had been taken into custody along with his uncle in July 2024 in connection with a theft case. While the police claimed he had died of a heart attack, his mother alleged that he had been tortured to death. On May 15, the Supreme Court transferred the investigation to the CBI after finding that the State police had colluded with the accused. Since then, the two officers held directly responsible for the custodial death have remained at large.Listing the matter after the vacation, the Bench made it clear that senior officials would be held personally accountable for any further non-compliance. “Comply with the direction of the apex court of the country, otherwise we know how to get it complied with. If not, the consequences under the contempt petition will follow. We will frame charges,” it warned.