Badlapur encounter: Bombay High Court questions sessions court order staying magistrate report

The Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned the propriety of a recent order from the Thane Sessions Court that stayed specific findings of a magisterial inquiry report, which had held five police officers responsible for the alleged fake encounter of Akshay Shinde, the accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case..Shinde, an attendant at a private school in Badlapur, was arrested in August 2024 for allegedly sexually assaulting two kindergarten girls in the school toilet. On September 23, 2024, he was killed in an alleged encounter while being transported by police from Taloja prison to Kalyan in Thane district for questioning. The police claimed that Shinde snatched a firearm from one of the officers, opened fire, and was killed in retaliatory shooting. However, a magisterial inquiry into the incident concluded that Shinde’s killing was unnecessary and held five police officers responsible for his death.After the inquiry report, the police officers involved challenged the findings, prompting the Thane Sessions Court to issue an interim order on February 21 staying the findings while their revision application was pending..On Thursday, a Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale raised concerns over the Sessions Court's intervention, especially while the matter was already before the High Court."Isn't this overreaching the court's jurisdiction? When the High Court is seized of the matter, how can a Sessions Court stay the report?" Justice Dere asked, highlighting the issue of jurisdictional overreach..The judges further questioned the legal standing of the stay on a magisterial inquiry report, which was recommendatory in nature and did not affect any legal rights.“In the last hearing, you (the State) yourself said that the magisterial report is recommendatory and does not impact any rights. If it does not affect rights, how is the ADR revisable?” Justice Gokhale asked. Justice Dere added, "It's not an order; it's a report. Is it even a judicial proceeding?".The Court also criticised the State for failing to object to the revision application before the Sessions Court and demanded clarity on whether the State planned to challenge the order. "Tell us if it is a revisable order. When the High Court is seized of the matter, was this brought to the judge’s notice? Is the State going to challenge the order or not? Let us know. Are you (State) not appalled and shocked?"Additionally, the bench questioned whether the sessions judge in Thane had committed judicial impropriety by staying the findings of the inquiry report. “We will also examine whether this amounts to judicial impropriety and insubordination when the matter is pending before this court,” the bench observed..In response to the parents of the accused, who expressed a desire to withdraw from the case during the previous hearing, the High Court appointed Senior Advocate Manjula Rao as amicus curiae to assist it.Rao will help determine whether an FIR should be filed against the police officers based on the findings of the magisterial report.She will also help examine whether the ongoing judicial commission, led by former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Dilip Bhosale, or the CID inquiry creates any legal obstacles to concluding the Accidental Death Report (ADR). Furthermore, she will assist the Court in assessing the legality of the Thane Sessions Judge’s order staying the report.The bench will continue hearing the matter on March 5 after the newly appointed amicus goes through the past orders, magisterial inquiry report and other materials pertinent to the case.