“Justice Must Not Only Be Done, But Seen to Be Done”: Bombay HC Orders SIT Probe Into Alleged Custodial Death of Akshay Shinde, Citing State’s Reluctance to Register FIR
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Mumbai, to investigate the alleged custodial death of Akshay Shinde. The Court held that despite the withdrawal of the petition by the complainant, the circumstances surrounding the incident required judicial intervention to ensure compliance with constitutional norms and procedural law. The Court ordered that the SIT be headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police and conduct a fair, impartial investigation uninfluenced by any external factors.
The matter arose from an incident involving the alleged custodial death of Akshay Shinde, who had been accused of sexual abuse in two separate incidents involving minor girls at a co-educational school in Badlapur, Thane. Crimes bearing C.R. No. 380/2024 and C.R. No. 391/2024 were registered against him under Sections 65(2), 74, 75, and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4(2), 8, 10, and 21(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. He was arrested on 17 August 2024 and lodged at Taloja Central Jail. A third FIR, C.R. No. 409/2024, was registered at Boisar Police Station on 5 September 2024 by his wife, later transferred to Badlapur Police Station and then to Crime Branch, Thane.
On 20 September 2024, Crime Branch Thane obtained a production warrant from the Magistrate and presented it to the Special POCSO Court, Kalyan, which granted custody of Shinde to the Crime Branch. On 23 September 2024, Crime Branch officers took custody of Shinde from Taloja Jail. During transit, a firing incident occurred in the police van, resulting in the death of Shinde and injury to a police officer.
The petitioner, father of the deceased, sent complaints via email on 24 September 2024 to the Commissioner of Police, Kalwa, and the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, seeking investigation into the incident. The matter was raised before the Court on 25 September 2024. The Public Prosecutor stated that investigation had been transferred to the State CID on 24 September and assured the Court of evidentiary collection.
Subsequently, by order dated 3 October 2024, the Court queried the Advocate General regarding the investigation’s status. The State informed the Court that all relevant documents had been submitted to the Magistrate by 27 September 2024 to facilitate an inquiry under Section 176 of the BNSS. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Thane sought an extension of time to complete the inquiry. A sealed report was submitted to the Court on 20 January 2025.
On 24 February 2025, the petitioner and his wife expressed a desire to withdraw from the case. The Court, however, decided to proceed with the matter in public interest, citing broader concerns over constitutional obligations and due process. On 27 February 2025, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Manjula Rao as amicus curiae.
Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor for the State, appeared along with Ms. Rao. Mr. Katarnaware, who originally represented the petitioner, was discharged following the withdrawal.
The Court noted that despite repeated queries, no FIR had been registered in connection with the alleged encounter, although a death report was sent to the Magistrate, and relevant documents were submitted by the CID. Mr. Desai relied on provisions of the BNSS, including Sections 173, 176, and 194 (equivalent to Sections 154, 157, and 174 of CrPC) and several Supreme Court decisions to argue that the State CID had been investigating the matter and that the findings of the Magistrate in the ADR could not form the basis for registration of an FIR.
Amicus Curiae Ms. Rao argued that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, requiring mandatory registration of an FIR under Section 154. She referred to judgments including Lalita Kumari v. State of UP and PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, asserting that the statutory mandate had not been fulfilled by the police authorities.
The Court stated: “Only one question troubles us, which is—absence of an FIR despite information relating to commission of a cognizable offence being given to an officer in-charge of a police station.”
On the legal position, the Court noted: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the papers, we re-iterate the legal position with respect to registration of an FIR in cases, where a cognizable offence is disclosed.”
Referring to Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court recorded that the legislative intent is to make the registration of an FIR mandatory in cases involving a cognizable offence, without the necessity of conducting any preliminary inquiry. It further stated that the officer in charge of a police station is required to investigate a cognizable offence without seeking prior approval or orders from a Magistrate.
The Court observed that at the stage of registration, the concerned police officer is not permitted to embark upon an inquiry to assess the reliability or credibility of the information, and therefore cannot refuse to register a case on such grounds. It was stated that Section 154 of the Code is mandatory in nature and does not confer any discretion upon the officer in charge of a police station to initiate a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.
On the PUCL guidelines, the Court recorded: “The sheer fact that guideline No. 31.2 itself remains to be acted upon, negates [the State’s] argument at the very threshold.”
The Court also stated: “There is an even greater need for transparency, given that the victim was already in police custody, accompanied by as many as four police personnel, yet the police claim it to be an encounter.”
Evaluating the findings of the Magistrate’s report, the Court stated: “The Magistrate observed that the police were in a position to control the situation and could have avoided Akshay’s death. The Magistrate has recorded the circumstances which create a doubt about the genuineness of the encounter.”
It clarified the scope of the Magistrate’s power: “Although, the learned Magistrate named the police officials responsible... the same could not have been done, considering the mandate of the inquiry, which was only to find out the ‘cause of death’ and not to name the perpetrators.”
The Court found the CID’s reluctance to register an FIR unjustified: “We fail to understand what further investigation is being done by State CID... The said submission rings hollow.”
Rejecting the State’s submission that it was awaiting the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation, the Court stated: “We again fail to understand whether that can be a reason for not registering the FIR... Reasonableness and credibility of the information is not a condition precedent.”
Addressing the withdrawal of the petition, the Court recorded: “Closing the matter in their absence would have been easy, but a Constitutional Court cannot ignore the State’s failure to fulfill its obligations.”
The Court concluded: “The State’s reluctance to even register an FIR has left the petitioner and his wife feeling helpless... Such negligence weakens public trust in institutions.”
The Court ordered: “We are left with no other option but to constitute a SIT under the supervision of Shri Lakhmi Gautam, the current Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Mumbai.”
It further directed: “The Joint Commissioner shall form the SIT, comprising officers of his choice from any department and the team shall be headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police. If the selected officers are from different locations or department, they shall be relieved of their current duties to enable their full participation in the investigation.”
The Court stated: “The State CID to hand over all papers relating to the ADR collected by them during the ADR investigation, to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Mumbai, within two days.”
The SIT was directed: “to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, promptly... in particular, the judgment of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), on receipt of papers.”
It added: “If the petitioner does not come forward for the reasons cited by him, the criminal law can be set into motion by anyone, including the police.”
The Court concluded: “This course of action is warranted in the interest of justice, to advance the cause 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 seen to be done’.”
“We are confident that the SIT, to be constituted as directed, shall make every endeavour to unearth the facts and take the case to its logical end. Needless to state, that the SIT shall conduct the investigation, fairly and impartially.”
The petition was accordingly disposed of. A request made by the State for a stay on the order was rejected.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Katarnaware with Ms. Pooja Dongare and Mr. Aditya Katarnaware
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Hiten S. Venegavkar, Public Prosecutor, and Mrs. P. P. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor
Amicus Curiae: Mrs. Manjula Rao, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kunal J. Rane, Mr. Rohan Deshmukh, Mr. Pratik Deomore, and Ms. Latika Chitre
Case Title: Anna Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:15985-DB
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 4107 of 2024
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
[Read/Download order]
