HC orders SIT probe

Court says can’t remain mute

Mumbai: In a tough stance, the Bombay High Court has ordered a SIT probe against five police personnel allegedly involved in the Badlapur ‘fake encounter’ case.

Pronouncing the order, a division bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale declined the plea of Special Public Prosecutor Amit Desai for a 2-week stay to enable them file an appeal in the Supreme Court.

“Upon perusal of Enquiry Report, we are satisfied that the encounter requires thorough investigation. Closing the matter in the absence of the deceased’s parents would have been easy but a Constitutional court cannot ignore state's reluctance even to register an FIR, which has left them helpless. such conduct weakens public's faith... We cannot be mute spectators,” said the judges.

The court noted that it was ‘the police's duty to take the case to its logical end’, and ordered setting up the SIT under Mumbai Joint Police Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam.

Handover of papers

Justice Mohite-Dere and Justice Gokhale also directed the state CID to hand over all the case papers to the SIT within 2 days, while Gautam was granted liberty to constitute a team headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police and other officers of his choice.

The judges observed that even if the petitioner (parents) don’t come forward, the criminal law can be set into motion by anyone including the police.

“This will uphold the public’s faith in justice delivery system. We hope and trust that the SIT will make every endeavour to take the case to its logical end. Although it was easier to dispose of the petition, the court cannot be a mute spectator to this… Justice need not only be done, but also seen to be done,” said the judges.

The encounter

The developments came in the plea filed by the parents of Akshay Shinde - the sole accused in the August 2024 sexual assault case involving two nursery class girls in a private school - who was eliminated in an alleged ‘fake’ encounter on September 23, 2024.

The parents had claimed that Akshay Shinde was killed by the police in the staged encounter.

Countering, the police had contended that the accused reportedly attempted to snatch a gun from one of the policemen in the escort team and fire, prompting a retaliatory firing by the others.

A subsequent inquiry by a Magistrate had concluded in Jan. 2025 that Shinde’s death was unnecessary and had held five cops, including a police driver, responsible for it.

The Magistrate said that if the Forensic Science Laboratory reports are considered, then the ‘false encounter’ claim of the deceased’s parents had ‘substance’.

The Shinde family had pointed out how, despite the Magistrate probe report, the state government refused to register a FIR against the five cops citing the pendency of the ongoing State CID investigation.

Justice Mohite-Dere and Justice Gokhale took note of the state’s failure to lodge the FIR that forced the parents to withdraw their petition on February 06 but the court had rejected their plea, proceeded with the case, and appointed Senior Advocate Manjula Rao as an Amicus Curiae.

Shoddy probe

In the initial stages, the high court had pulled up the state for a shoddy probe, while prima facing opining that it was difficult to believe the police version that five cops in the van could not pin down Akshay Shinde, and avoided shooting him.

The Magistrate probe said Shinde’s fingerprints were not on the gun, while the police arguments of firing in self-defence was 'unjustified and under the shadow of suspicion’.

However, Desai, along with Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar and Additional PP Prajakta Shinde had argued that the Magistrate probe report lacked material for the state to file a FIR, but assured that the State CID was probing the case independently.

Challenging their version, Rao said on March 10 that the state was duty bound to lodge the FIR against the five cops, but failed to do so, and moreover, no cognizance was taken of a letter by the parents to the Director-General of Police a day after Akshay Shinde’s death on which no action was taken.

The parents had also told the high court that in view of the case, they were forced to relocate from their village and are compelled to live on the streets and beg to survive.