In a damning indictment of police inaction and procedural bias, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on July 4, 2025, ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in the custodial death of 35-year-old Dalit law student Somnath Vyankat Suryawanshi, who was arrested by Parbhani police in December 2024 following protests over the desecration of a replica of the Constitution.
As per the report of Hindustan Times, a division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh directed the Mondha Police Station to register the FIR within one week based on a complaint filed by Somnath’s mother, Vijayabai Suryawanshi, and asked the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, to transfer the case to an officer of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) rank. The bench also took strong exception to the delay in registration of the FIR, despite the presence of post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports that collectively indicated that Somnath had suffered grievous injuries in custody.
Background and arrest
Somnath Suryawanshi, a final-year law student from Pune, had travelled to Parbhani to appear for his examination when he was caught in the aftermath of large-scale protests that erupted on December 10, 2024. The protests were sparked by the desecration of a glass-encased replica of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, an act that allegedly followed a public meeting organised by the Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha, a far-right outfit. Police launched sweeping arrests following the violence, picking up over 50 men and women, most of them from marginalised and Dalit communities.
Somnath was allegedly detained on December 11, and according to police accounts, he died on December 15, four days later, after collapsing inside the Parbhani Central Prison. Authorities claimed he had complained of chest pain and was shifted to a state-run hospital, where he was declared dead.
However, this narrative was forcefully challenged in a writ petition filed by his mother in April 2025, alleging that her son had been brutally tortured in custody, and that the police had tried to cover up the custodial killing. Her legal team, led by advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, argued for immediate FIR registration, suspension of the concerned officers, and the formation of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Postmortem and magisterial inquiry findings
A magisterial inquiry, concluded on March 20, 2025, unequivocally held the police responsible for Somnath’s death, confirming multiple instances of custodial violence. His post-mortem report documented 24 visible external injuries and several internal injuries, concluding that the cause of death was “shock due to multiple injuries.” The inquest report too noted visible trauma on the body.
Despite these findings, the police failed to initiate criminal proceedings against their own personnel. In her petition, Vijayabai also alleged that police officer Ashok Ghorband had offered her ₹50 lakh to not file a complaint against the department. She accused the police of acting out of caste-based hatred, and demanded full disclosure of the magisterial report and an impartial probe.
April 29, 2025: High Court intervenes
In a significant first intervention, the Aurangabad Bench on April 29, 2025, expressed grave concern over the direction of the ongoing police-led investigation. The court observed that the inquiry appeared to be conducted with a “preconceived notion,” undermining the credibility of the process. It restrained the police from proceeding further with the investigation, pending further review, and set the next hearing for May 8, emphasising the need to safeguard the integrity of the process.
The restraint order marked a serious judicial rebuke and indicated that the court was unwilling to let the same police force accused of custodial violence investigate the case unilaterally. (Detailed report may be read here.)
May 8, 2025: Ongoing scrutiny
At the subsequent hearing on May 8, the court continued to press for accountability and demanded updated records, while public prosecutor A.B. Girase, appearing for the state, maintained that no illegality had occurred and that the CID-led probe was ongoing. The petitioner’s counsel rejected this, arguing that continuing the investigation under the same agency—despite it being accused—was a violation of basic legal norms and natural justice.
Advocate Hitendra Gandhi cited the 2023 Badlapur custodial death case as a precedent, where the Bombay High Court had constituted an SIT to probe the custodial killing of Akshay Shinde, an accused in a sexual assault case who was allegedly killed in a staged encounter. The court in that case had allowed Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam, to constitute his own team, drawing officers from any department of his choosing.
July 4, 2025: FIR ordered, CID criticised
At the July 4 hearing, the court finally ordered the mandatory registration of an FIR, noting that the post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports provided sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant criminal proceedings. The bench also criticised the CID for seeking a second medical opinion from JJ Hospital in Mumbai, bypassing the original seven-member autopsy team, calling the move suspicious and unnecessary.
“The post-mortem report shows that there were 24 visible injuries. Of course, there are internal injuries also,” the court observed, as per the HT report. It questioned why such strong medical findings had not yet translated into criminal proceedings.
Public prosecutor Girase again argued against premature FIR registration, claiming the inquiry was still incomplete. The bench, however, rejected this argument, noting that continuing delay in the face of clear evidence amounted to obstruction of justice.
Towards judicial accountability in custodial deaths
The High Court’s categorical order to file an FIR, its castigation of the CID, and its early restraint on a biased probe mark a significant step in holding law enforcement accountable for custodial deaths, particularly those involving caste-based violence. The court’s observations also signal growing judicial impatience with institutional delays and systemic obfuscation in such cases.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2025. The outcome could have wide-ranging implications for custodial death jurisprudence in Maharashtra, and may set a precedent for mandatory independent probes in all such incidents. If an SIT is constituted under judicial supervision, it could strengthen demands for structural reforms in how police misconduct, especially involving vulnerable communities, is investigated and prosecuted.
Related:
Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC
Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death