In a landmark ruling that strikes at the heart of custodial violence and systemic apathy, the Bombay High Court on April 8, 2025, ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged fake encounter of a 23-year-old man accused in the Badlapur school sexual assault case. The judgment, delivered by a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale, is a powerful indictment of the State machinery and an emphatic reassertion of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights, especially of those at the margins.
Background: A custodial death disguised as an encounter
The now deceased Akshay Shinde, a janitor employed at a school in Badlapur, was arrested in August 2024 on charges of sexually assaulting two minor girls. On September 23, 2024, while being escorted from Taloja jail to Kalyan, he was shot dead by police officers who claimed he had attempted to snatch a service revolver and fired at them. The police’s version — that they acted in self-defence — was accepted unquestioningly by the State. No FIR was registered against the policemen involved. Instead, the narrative of a justified encounter was quickly cemented in public discourse.
However, a magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the CrPC, conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), painted a very different picture. The report concluded that the custodial death was not only suspicious but allegedly amounted to a deliberate killing. Key findings included the absence of the deceased’s fingerprints on the weapon he was alleged to have used, inconsistencies in the police version of events, and a complete lack of procedural compliance. The bench, after examining the judicial inquiry report, concluded that a detailed investigation into the alleged encounter was necessary, given the undeniable fact that the accused died from bullet wounds inflicted by a police officer while in custody. The Court observed that any refusal to investigate such a death not only weakens the rule of law but also diminishes public trust in the justice system and enables those responsible to escape accountability. (Detailed reports may be read here, here and here).
State’s inaction and judicial intervention
The deceased’s parents, devastated and destitute, lodged a complaint at the Manpada police station the day after the incident. They received no response. In November, they filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a fair investigation. On February 24, 2025, the petitioner and his wife expressed a desire to withdraw their case. However, the Court declined to let the matter rest, citing serious questions surrounding the legality of the police action that led to Akshay’s custodial death. Emphasising the findings in the Magistrate’s report, the bench observed that ignoring such concerns would amount to shirking its constitutional duty. The Court underlined that in a democracy, citizens have the right to transparency and accountability from law enforcement, especially when a death occurs in custody. To ensure a fair inquiry into these troubling issues, the Court appointed senior advocate Ms. Manjula Rao as amicus curiae on February 27, 2025.
The State, through the Advocate General, insisted that no FIR was required, as a preliminary CID inquiry had not found enough material to proceed. The Court rebuked this position, noting that a preliminary inquiry cannot override a judicial officer’s findings under a statutory process like Section 176 CrPC.
Judicial Findings: Constitution over complicity
The judgment goes far beyond procedural correctness and squarely addresses the constitutional implications of the State’s inaction. The Court held that where a custodial death is prima facie established, and an inquiry report discloses cognisable offences, the police are under a mandatory obligation to register an FIR. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013), the bench reiterated that registration of an FIR in such cases is not discretionary. The Court also held that the authorities were duty bound to adhere to the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari case and ensure that the case which prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, is taken to its logical end.
Justice Mohite-Dere and Justice Gokhale were unsparing in their critique of the State and the duty-bound law enforcement. The Court further relied on PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014), and Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012), and opined that in the present case there was an even greater need for transparency, as the victim was already in police custody, accompanied by four police personnel, yet the police claim it to be an encounter. The judgment acknowledges the unequal power dynamic between the victims and the State, and calls upon constitutional courts to play an active role in redressing such injustice, especially when the complainants are from the poorest rings of the society.
Key takeaways from the judgment
- The silence of the state and the failure to act
“Upon perusal of the inquiry report, we are satisfied that the case in question i.e. the encounter requires thorough investigation, as it is undisputed that the deceased succumbed to bullet injuries inflicted by a police officer, when he was in police custody.” (Para 28)
Through the judgement, the bench has affirmed that the deceased was in police custody—making the death a custodial killing, which imposes a heightened duty on the State to ensure accountability. Second, the Court is unequivocal in stating that the death was not a matter of speculation—the bullet injuries by a police officer are undisputed. By declaring that this requires “thorough investigation,” the Court implicitly rebukes the State for failing to act even in the face of clear and damning evidence. It also sets the stage for invoking Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, where the Supreme Court had held that registration of FIR is mandatory when a cognisable offence is disclosed.
- Justice cannot depend on the strength of the victim
When the victim’s parents pleaded to withdraw the case, citing extreme hardship and threats, the Court refused to let the matter drop.
“We may also note, why, despite the petitioner and his wife expressing their desire to withdraw the petition, we thought it appropriate to proceed with the same, by appointing an amicus. Closing the matter in their absence would have been easy, but a Constitutional Court cannot ignore the State’s failure to fulfil its obligations.” (Para 29)
The Court acknowledges the vulnerability of the petitioners—driven by fear and systemic intimidation—but refuses to treat their withdrawal as the end of the road.
By stating that “closing the matter would have been easy,” the bench reflects a deep self-awareness about how courts often abdicate responsibility under the guise of procedural closure. But here, the judges take the harder, morally necessary path—appointing an amicus to carry the case forward. Moreover, this judgment lays down a precedent that when there is a failure by the State to discharge constitutional obligations, the Court must step in suo-moto if necessary. Justice, in this case, is framed not as something that is contingent upon the victim’s persistence, but as a constitutional imperative that the Court must uphold regardless.
- The human cost of impunity
“A 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.” (Para 30)
This judgement is both a legal summation and a moral indictment. It links procedural failure (not registering an FIR) with broader democratic decay: erosion of rule of law, denial of closure, and collapse of institutional trust. By pointing out the emotional toll on the family—“feeling helpless, forcing them to forgo closure”—the Court humanises the victims and frames the denial of justice as a form of psychological and social violence. The part about the Court not being a “mute spectator” reinforces the judiciary’s constitutional role as an active guardian, not a passive observer. What makes this judgement particularly powerful is that it recognises how systemic impunity—not just one incident—can delegitimise the entire State in the eyes of the public.
- Justice as Performance: Rebuilding public trust
“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’.” (Para 33)
Here, the Court re-iterates one of the most well-known principles of natural justice—justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done—to justify its decision to direct further investigation despite the withdrawal of the petition by the victim’s family. This reflects the Court’s awareness of its public role. It is not enough for the judiciary to silently correct wrongs behind closed doors—the process must be transparent and principled, so as to inspire public faith in the legal system. The Court positions itself not merely as a neutral arbiter but as a guardian of legitimacy—conscious that public confidence is integral to the administration of justice. In the context of custodial violence and the inaction of the police, this judgment becomes even more significant as it signals that the Court is not merely acting to correct one injustice—it is also seeking to restore faith in the justice delivery system that had been severely compromised.
Court’s directions
The Court ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), which will be supervised by Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam. The SIT is to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and will be relieved of all other duties to ensure full attention to the case. The CID was directed to hand over all files and documents to the SIT within 48 hours, and the investigation is to proceed independently of the earlier CID probe. Importantly, the Court held that even if the petitioner withdraws, “the criminal law can be set into motion by anyone.”
“Hence, 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. 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 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. Accordingly, the SIT to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, promptly, having regard to what is observed herein-above by us, in particular, the judgment of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), on receipt of papers. 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.” (Para 32)
Impact and significance
“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. Any criminal offence is an offence against the society and the State acts as the guardian of human rights and as the protector of law.” (Para 25)
This ruling is significant for several reasons. First, it is a clear reminder that law enforcement officials are not above the law. In a political climate where “encounter” killings have been valorised, especially against marginalised accused, this judgment asserts that even those who stand accused have constitutional rights — and the State must be held accountable when those rights are violated.
Second, the Court’s refusal to allow procedural withdrawal due to fear or hardship sends a powerful signal: when the State fails to act, constitutional courts must. This affirms the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding rights, even when victims are unable to fight for themselves.
Lastly, the judgment reframes justice as a right, not a privilege — particularly for the marginalised. By declaring that every offence is an offence against society, the Court shifts responsibility for justice from the victim to the State. In doing so, it not only upholds the rule of law but strengthens the democratic promise of equality before law.
This is a judgment that pierces through the veneer of legal formality to deliver substantive justice. It affirms that silence and inaction in the face of State violence are constitutionally impermissible — and that courts must speak loudest when the victims have been rendered voiceless.
The complete judgment may be read below:
Related:
SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS?