Bombay HC Orders FIR, SIT In Badlapur Rape Accused Encounter; Slams Maharashtra Govt Over Delay

The Bombay HC ordered the registration of an FIR and the formation of an SIT to probe the custodial death of Akshay Shinde. The court criticised the Maharashtra government for its reluctance to initiate legal proceedings.

File Photo of deceased Akshay Shinde, accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case

Source : Mrityunjay Singh

The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against five policemen in connection with the alleged custodial death of Akshay Shinde, an accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case. The court also ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), noting that a prima facie offence had been disclosed.

A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale came down heavily on the Maharashtra government for its reluctance to initiate legal proceedings, stating that such inaction undermines the state’s legitimacy and erodes public trust in the criminal justice system.

“When a prima facie offence is disclosed, it is mandatory to lodge a case,” the bench observed, emphasising that the police are duty-bound to act in accordance with the law. “Reasonableness and credibility of the information are not conditions precedent for registering an FIR,” the court added, as per news agency PTI.

Shinde, who was accused of sexually assaulting two minor girls at a school in Badlapur, Thane district, died on 23 September 2024 after he was allegedly shot inside a police van while being transported from Taloja prison to Kalyan for questioning in another case. The escorting police team claimed they opened fire in self-defence after Shinde allegedly snatched a weapon and began firing. However, a magistrate’s inquiry dismissed this version and indicted five police personnel.

Badlapur Encounter: HC Raps Maharashtra Govt Over Reluctance To Initiate Legal Proceedings

The bench underscored that even though Shinde’s parents had expressed unwillingness to pursue the case, the High Court, as a Constitutional authority, could not remain a mute spectator. “We are of the opinion that a cognisable offence is disclosed, and as such, the police are duty-bound to proceed in adherence with the law,” the bench reiterated.

The court criticised the state’s continued hesitance to register an FIR, stating, “Such action undermines the state’s legitimacy and the common man’s faith in the criminal justice system.”

The bench directed Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam to constitute an SIT led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and register the FIR. “We are confident that the SIT will unearth facts and conduct a fair and impartial investigation from all angles, uninfluenced by anyone,” the court noted.

Senior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for the government, sought a stay on the order, but the court refused.

“The only condition for recording an FIR is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognisable offence, both present in this case,” the High Court said, as per PTI. It further added that refusing to investigate such a crime weakens the rule of law, denies justice to victims, and emboldens perpetrators.

The bench also said the state’s inaction had left Shinde’s parents helpless, depriving them of closure over their son’s death. “Such negligence weakens public trust in institutions and compromises the state’s legitimacy,” it added.

Reiterating the importance of accountability, the court stated, “The criminal justice system will acquire credibility only when the citizens at large are convinced that justice is based on the foundation of truth.”

“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 bench said.

Considering the findings of the magistrate’s report, the court stressed that the matter could not be brushed under the carpet, especially given the serious questions surrounding compliance with Constitutional norms and legal procedures.

“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 bench concluded that denying a fair probe or causing delay is an injustice not just to the victim and their family, but to society at large.