Bombay High Court forms SIT to probe custodial death of Akshay Shinde in Badlapur case | File Photo
Mumbai: Noting that a cognisable offence is disclosed, the Bombay High Court on Monday constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Mumbai police to probe the custodial death of an accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case.
The court also chided the State government for its “reluctance” in registering an FIR against the five policemen, observing that the same would undermine the State’s “legitimacy” and erode public faith in the criminal justice system. Moreover, “refusal to investigate will allow perpetrators to go unpunished,” it said.
In August 2024, a 23-year-old man was arrested for the alleged sexual assault of two minor girls at a school in Badlapur in Thane district. He was shot dead on September 23 while being transported in a police van from Taloja prison to Kalyan for questioning in a case registered by his wife. The escorting police team claimed they had shot the accused in self-defence after he snatched the gun of one of them and opened fire.
However, a magistrate inquiry report dated January 17 dismissed the police theory and indicted five police personnel – The court has directed the SIT to register FIR against Senior Police Inspector Sanjay Shinde of the Thane Crime Branch, Assistant Police Inspector Nilesh More, Head Constables Abhijeet More and Harish Tawade, and Police Constable Satish Khatal – holding them “responsible” for the custodial death.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Gokhale said it was satisfied that “the encounter requires thorough investigation, as it is undisputed that the deceased succumbed to bullet injuries inflicted by a police officer, when he was in police custody.”
It said that police are duty-bound to proceed in adherence with the law when a cognisable offence is disclosed. “Reasonableness and credibility of the information are not conditions precedent for registering an FIR,” the bench said.
The court allowed a plea by the father of the deceased, who alleged that his son was killed in a fake encounter and sought an SIT inquiry into his custodial death.
The parents had sought to withdraw the petition citing inconvenience and threats to their lives. The court had then appointed senior advocate Manjula Rao as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist.
In a detailed 44-page judgment, the bench said that as a constitutional court, it cannot remain “mute spectators” even though the parents of the deceased said they did not want to pursue the case.
“The State’s reluctance to even register an FIR has left the petitioner and his wife feeling helpless, forcing them to forgo closure over their son’s untimely death. Such negligence weakens public trust in institutions and compromises the State’s legitimacy. As a Constitutional Court, we cannot permit this and be mute spectators,” the bench said.
The court, noting that it was “left with no other option,” directed the constitution of an SIT under the supervision of Joint Police Commissioner (Crime) Lakhmi Gautam. The SIT, headed by a DCP and officers of the Jt CP’s choice, has been asked to “act promptly.”
“If the selected officers are from different locations or departments, they shall be relieved of their current duties to enable their full participation in the investigation,” it said. The CID, which is probing the case, has been directed to hand over all the papers within two days.
The court expressed hope and trust that the SIT shall make every endeavour to unearth the facts and take the case to its logical end. Needless to state, the SIT shall conduct the investigation “fairly and impartially from all angles, uninfluenced by anyone.”
The judges emphasised that the police are duty-bound to adhere to the principles of law and Supreme Court judgments and take cases—where a prima facie cognisable offence is disclosed—to their logical end.
“Such action was warranted in the interest of justice and to uphold public confidence in the justice delivery system. The same is necessitated, keeping in mind the adage ‘Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done’,” it underlined.
The bench said the criminal justice system will acquire credibility only when the citizens at large are convinced that justice is based on the foundation of truth. Crimes affect the entire society, and thus the legitimate interest of society in the investigation cannot be brushed aside.
“It is important to strengthen the faith and confidence of people in the law-enforcing agency and this institution, lest the faith of the people in the administration of justice stands shaken,” the court said.
Denial of a fair probe or delay is as much an injustice to the victim and society as it is to the accused, it added. Considering the facts in the magistrate’s report, the court cannot allow the issue to be swept under the carpet, especially when the moot question about adhering to constitutional norms and due legal process is at stake, the bench said.
“Citizens cannot be permitted to remain uncertain regarding their faith in the law-enforcing machinery. It is the responsibility of the police to follow constitutional principles and uphold the life of every individual, whether an innocent one or a criminal,” the court said.
The judges said it would be unfair to the deceased’s parents, who come from society’s poorer strata, to be “deprived of closure”—and also unfair to citizens of a democratic country.
The court refused the State’s request to stay the operation of the order to allow them to approach the Supreme Court.
