The inquiry determined that the allegations made by the accused’s parents in the Badlapur Sexual Assault Case had merit, claiming their son was extrajudicially killed in a “fake encounter.”
MUMBAI: Today, 27th Feb, The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized the Sessions Court’s decision to put on hold a magistrate’s findings that questioned the genuineness of the alleged ‘encounter‘ of Akshay Shinde, an accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case. The High Court expressed shock over the Sessions Court’s order and raised serious concerns about judicial propriety.
A magistrate had earlier ruled that the five policemen escorting Akshay Shinde could have controlled the situation without using force. The magistrate concluded that the use of force, which led to Shinde’s death, was not justified.
According to the police, Shinde had opened fire when they were taking him from Taloja prison to Kalyan in Thane district for questioning, and in response, they shot him dead in self-defense.
However, the magistrate’s inquiry suggested that the encounter appeared to be “fake” since the force used by the policemen was “unjustified.”
The five policemen involved in the case had approached the Sessions Court in Thane, requesting a stay on the magistrate’s findings. On February 21, the Sessions Court granted their request and put the magistrate’s report on hold.
When this matter came up before the Bombay High Court, Justice Mohite-Dere strongly criticized the Sessions Court’s decision, saying,
“We are shocked. How can the sessions judge pass such an order? Isn’t he aware that we are already seized with this matter and it is being heard in every two weeks? Is this judicial propriety? How is such an order tenable and before that how can the revision application itself be maintainable because this matter is pending before us?”
During the hearing, the High Court appointed Senior Advocate Manjula Rao as Amicus Curiae to assist in the case. This decision came after the father of the deceased accused had earlier expressed his unwillingness to pursue the case further due to “delay in getting justice.”
The court instructed Rao to examine whether the State could register an FIR against the five policemen in light of the magistrate’s report.
The case has been adjourned till March 5, allowing Rao time to review the documents and present her submissions.
The High Court had earlier noted on September 25, 2024, that it was difficult to accept that the accused, who was not a “strong man,” could not be overpowered by the police officers present with him. The bench also pointed out that the police officer who fired at the accused was an Assistant Police Inspector and should have known how to handle the situation.
On December 19, 2024, the deceased accused’s parents informed the court that they were struggling to survive, as no one was willing to give them work. They also claimed that they had been forced to leave their house and were living on the streets.
Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar was asked whether the State had opposed the policemen’s revision applications before the Sessions Court. He responded in the affirmative. However, the High Court appeared unconvinced by his reply.
Justice Mohite-Dere questioned, “Is it (order) overreaching the fact that we are seized with the matter…When the matter is sub-judice, could the sessions court entertained the petition? We do not see any objection raised by the State against the maintainability of the petition itself. Has the judge overstepped his brief? Is it not judicial insubordination by not following judicial propriety? We are shocked…Is the State going to challenge the order not?”
The High Court will now wait for Senior Advocate Manjula Rao’s submissions regarding the registration of an FIR against the policemen.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 5.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
