Badlapur encounter: Bombay High Court orders SIT probe

The Bombay High Court on Monday ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged 'fake' encounter of Badlapur sexual assault accused Akshay Shinde. [Anna Maruti Shinde v State of Maharashtra].A Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale passed the order on a plea moved by father of the accused. The Court had reserved its orders on March 13.The SIT investigation by a team headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police will be conducted under the supervision of Mumbai Joint Commissioner of Police Lakhmi Gautam, the Court further ordered..The Court said it was satisfied that a thorough investigation was necessary in the case. It slammed the State for failing to even register a first information report (FIR) into the allegations of fake encounter."A constitutional court cannot ignore the State's failure to fulfill its obligations. Refusal to investigate a crime undermines the rule of law, erodes public faith in justice, and allows perpetrators to go unpunished. 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 remarked.The Court emphasised that the faith and confidence of people in the police and courts must be strengthened. "Lest the faith of the people in the administration of register stand shaken. Denial of fair investigation or delay in investigation is as much injustice to the victim and the society as to the accused. The concept of fair and proper investigation means that investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law," it added..Shinde, who was arrested in August 2024 for allegedly sexually assaulting two kindergarten girls, was killed in an encounter by the Thane police on September 23, 2024.The police claimed that Shinde attempted to snatch a firearm from one of the officers and opened fire, prompting a retaliatory shooting. However, a magisterial inquiry later concluded that Shinde’s death was unnecessary and held five police officers responsible..Shinde's family argued that despite the findings of the magisterial inquiry, the State government refused to file an FIR against the officers involved, citing an ongoing independent investigation by the State CID.Today, the Court noted that the State's failure to file an FIR had forced the parents to even withdraw the petition. The Court had then rejected their request and proceeded with the case with the assistance of an Amicus. "Although it was easier to dispose of the petition, a constitutional court cannot be a mute spectator to this," the Bench said today as it ordered the SIT probe.It added that justice but not only be done but also seen to be done."This course of action is warranted in the interest of justice, to advance the course of justice and to uphold public confidence in the justice delivery system. The same as necessitated keeping in mind the adage justice must not only be served but also seen to be done.".The Court noted that the petitioners, although they hail from the poor strata of the society had filed a complaint on the very next day. However, no FIR was registered on his complaint."Only because the complainant/informant/victim hails from the poor strata of the society, his grievance cannot be ignored or brushed aside by the State. The offence, if any, is against the State and it is the responsibility of the State to take appropriate steps, if not on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint, even on the basis of the inquiry report or otherwise, on the basis of the information received and take the same to its logical end," the Bench underlined. .It agreed with the state's position that the magisterial inquiry report is only recommendatory in nature and that it could not have named the police officer responsible for the alleged offense. However, the Court also expressed the view that the report clearly disclosed a cognizable offense, which requires the police to follow the principles established in Lalita Kumari judgment of the Supreme Court. According to Lalita Kumari, the police are obligated to register an FIR upon the disclosure of a cognizable offense..Hence, it directed the SIT probe into the encounter and further ordered the State CID to handover all the material to the SIT within two days.After the order was pronounced, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Desai asked for a two-week stay on the judgment to approach the Supreme Court. However, the request was declined..Advocate Amit Katarnaware along with advocates Pooja Dongare and Aditya Katarnaware for the PetitionerSpecial Public Prosecutor Amit Desai along with Public Prosecutor Hiten S Venegavkar, and Additional Public Prosecutor P P Shinde for the StateSenior Advocate Manjula Rao acted as the Amicus curiae with the assistance of advocates Kunal J Rane, Rohan Deshmukh, Pratik Deomore and Latika Chitre.[Read Judgment]