According to the police, Shinde allegedly snatched a firearm from an officer, opened fire, and was subsequently killed in retaliatory firing. However, a magisterial inquiry later concluded that Shinde’s death was unnecessary and held five police officers responsible.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court heard arguments regarding the custodial death of Akshay Shinde, an accused in a sexual assault case. Senior Advocate Manjula Rao, appointed as Amicus Curiae, emphasized that the police should have immediately registered a First Information Report (FIR) after Shinde’s death.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Calls Sessions Court Order in Badlapur Encounter Case “Shocking”
Background of the Case
Akshay Shinde, who worked as an attendant at a private school in Badlapur, was arrested in August 2024 for allegedly sexually assaulting two kindergarten girls. On September 23, 2024, while being transported from Taloja prison to Kalyan in Thane district for questioning, Shinde was allegedly killed in a police encounter.
According to the police, Shinde allegedly snatched a firearm from an officer, opened fire, and was subsequently killed in retaliatory firing. However, a magisterial inquiry later concluded that Shinde’s death was unnecessary and held five police officers responsible.
Amicus Curiae’s Arguments
During the hearing before a bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale, Manjula Rao stated that an FIR should have been lodged immediately upon learning about the custodial death. Instead, an Accidental Death Report (ADR) was registered on September 24, 2024, a day after the encounter.
Shinde’s parents had also submitted a written complaint to the Director General of Police and the Thane Police Commissioner on the same day. Rao argued that the State CID should have acted upon the complaint and registered an FIR.
Quoting Rao, she said, “It is not necessary that the information received is genuine or legitimate for an FIR to be filed. An FIR is a document that commences the investigation. Merely registering an FIR does not mean the police must arrest the individuals involved immediately; they have discretion regarding whether to arrest or defer the arrest.”
She further emphasized,
“When there is information on a cognizable offence, the police have no choice; it’s not their discretion. It’s mandatory for them to file an FIR. After the investigation is completed, they have discretion regarding whether to file a chargesheet or not.”
Rao also pointed out that a preliminary inquiry was unnecessary in this case.
She stated, “It is not necessary for a preliminary inquiry in such cases. As soon as the cognizable offence came to its knowledge, it was mandatory for the police to file an FIR. If there is the slightest indication that the cause of death is not natural, an investigation has to be launched. Till date, there is nothing forthcoming regarding the letter filed by the parents. As soon as the state took over the investigation, the ADR, which revealed that it was a custodial death, should have been converted into an FIR.”
In an earlier hearing, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Desai argued against the immediate registration of an FIR. He mentioned that an independent investigation by the State CID is ongoing and that filing an FIR at this stage is unnecessary.
Desai stated that the State would take appropriate action based on the outcome of the ongoing investigation. He added that “an FIR cannot be filed solely on the basis of the magistrate’s report.”
The Bombay High Court will continue hearing the matter on Tuesday.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
