The facts were damning. The deceased was in police custody. It was undisputed that he died of gunshot wounds inflicted by a police officer. A Magistrate’s inquiry had concluded earlier that the five policemen’s use of force was “unjustified” and noted that there were no fingerprints of the deceased on the weapon he was allegedly using. Yet, the SIT, formed by the court on April 7 under a senior, independent officer (Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam), claimed it could not lodge an FIR because the victim’s father had declined to pursue the case—citing loss of faith in the system. The High Court had to remind the State that in a cognisable offence, the police are duty-bound to file an FIR suo moto. (Details of the April 7 order may be read here.)

“We all have some responsibilities. Do not let the faith of the public in the system erode,” Justice Mohite-Dere had sternly warned. Ultimately, after public embarrassment and judicial prodding, the State agreed to file an FIR by May 3, with a nominated officer from the SIT acting as complainant.

But just days later, on May 5, the Supreme Court dismantled the very framework that made the High Court’s intervention effective. Responding to a Special Leave Petition filed by the State, a bench led by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale removed Joint Commissioner Gautam from the supervisory role and handed the investigation back to the Director General of Police (DGP)—a move that effectively returns control of the case to the highest ranks of the same police force being accused.

May 5: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay High Court’s SIT directive, hands probe back to police hierarchy

In a move that raises serious concerns about police accountability in custodial and encounter deaths, the Supreme Court on May 5 significantly diluted a Bombay High Court order that had mandated a court-monitored probe into the alleged fake encounter in Badlapur involving five policemen. The High Court’s order, notable for its insistence on institutional independence, had directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of a specific officer—Lakhmi Gautam, Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The Supreme Court has now modified that order, transferring supervisory control of the SIT to the Director General of Police (DGP), effectively returning the investigation to the top of the same law enforcement hierarchy implicated in the matter.

The bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra objecting to the High Court’s decision to name a specific officer to lead the investigation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, insisted that the State had no objection to the formation of an SIT but took issue with the High Court’s direction to place the probe under Joint Commissioner Gautam. SG Mehta contended that the DGP should be the supervisory authority, citing procedural norms and the need for institutional oversight.

In its order, the Court noted that “The petitioners state of Maharashtra has approached this Court by filing SLP being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the order to the extent of constituting the SIT in the manner directed in para 32, that is, under the supervision of Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. It is submitted by learned SG Mr. Mehta that the State has no objection with the SIT being constituted, but let it be constituted under the supervision of DGP, having regard to the litigations made. Since the respondent-complaint has already withdrawn himself before the High Court, we don’t see any reason to issue notice to the Respondent.”

In response, Justice Trivedi suggested a compromise—allowing either the DGP or a nominee to head the SIT. Justice Varale went further, implicitly critiquing the High Court by observing that it should not have selected specific officers for the probe.

“Under such circumstances, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations and concerns expressed by the High Court, we modify the order to the extent of constituting the SIT. We direct the SIT to be constituted by the DGP and officers selected by the DGP as deemed fit. The State shall do the needful in handing papers to DGP. We may clarify that the complaint, if he has any grievance, may approach the competent court that is the concerned magistrate or sessions court for appropriate relief. As a consequence, order dated April 30 or any order passed subsequently shall also stand modified. SLP stands disposed,” the order states.

What this line of judicial reasoning ignores, however, is precisely what necessitated the High Court’s intervention in the first place: a lack of faith in the Maharashtra police to investigate its own. The allegations involved custodial abuse and a suspected staged encounter. In such cases, courts have a duty to ensure an independent investigation that does not merely recycle command structures of the same force under scrutiny. By overturning a key portion of the High Court’s order—while ostensibly upholding the idea of an SIT—the Supreme Court has gutted the central safeguard meant to ensure impartiality.

The apex court’s order notes that since the complainant had already withdrawn from the High Court proceedings, there was no need to issue notice to him in the SLP. But this legal formality sidelines the broader public interest concern in the case—the right to life and protection against extrajudicial killings, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In its final direction, the Court modified the Bombay High Court’s order to state that the SIT shall be constituted by the DGP, who may select officers as deemed fit. The State is directed to hand over all relevant case documents to the DGP. It further notes that the complainant, if aggrieved, can approach the magistrate or sessions court for relief—an impractical suggestion, given that systemic police impunity is precisely what triggered the demand for a more credible probe.

This development reflects a broader trend of courts increasingly deferring to state institutions—even those implicated in serious misconduct—under the guise of procedural propriety. It signals judicial hesitancy to disturb the command structure of the police, even when there are credible allegations of rights violations by officers in that very structure.

By shifting the supervision of the SIT from a court-appointed officer to the DGP—who remains an administrative appointee of the State—the Supreme Court has diluted a rare instance of judicial courage shown by the Bombay High Court. The result is a probe that now risks becoming a bureaucratic formality rather than a meaningful pursuit of truth and accountability.

The complete order may be read here.

April 30: Maharashtra Police finally agrees to file FIR in the Badlapur fake encounter case

On April 30, after prolonged delays and repeated non-compliance, the Maharashtra Police finally informed the Bombay High Court that an FIR would be registered in the Badlapur ‘fake encounter’ case by Saturday, May 3. The assurance came during a hearing before a division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale, which had been monitoring the progress—or lack thereof—in the investigation into the death of a man in police custody.

The commitment to file the FIR was made by Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar after the court issued a stern warning to both the State Police and the court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). The bench expressed serious displeasure at the continued defiance of its April 7 order, which had directed the constitution of an SIT to investigate the involvement of five police officers in what was strongly suspected to be a custodial killing disguised as an encounter. The court had emphasised that the case warranted a thorough and independent investigation, especially since it was an undisputed fact that the deceased had died from bullet wounds inflicted by a police officer while he was in custody.

Justice Mohite-Dere, during the earlier order, had observed that crimes of this nature not only affect the individual victim but also shake the public’s faith in the justice system and society at large. The bench had then directed that the SIT be led by Joint Commissioner of Police Lakhmi Gautam, who was authorised to pick his own team, to be headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). The State CID was instructed to hand over all relevant documents and case materials to the SIT within 48 hours.

Despite these clear directions, during the April 25 hearing, the court was shocked to learn that the CID had failed to transfer the necessary documents. It was only after a full day of tense proceedings—and threats of contempt action—that the CID finally agreed to comply. However, by April 30, it emerged that the SIT had still not registered an FIR. Venegavkar attempted to explain that the SIT was waiting for the father of the deceased to lodge a formal complaint.

The bench firmly rejected this reasoning, reminding the prosecution that the father had already declined to file a complaint, citing delayed justice and emotional exhaustion. The judges reiterated that it was now the duty of the SIT to proceed suo moto—on its own authority—and file the FIR without further delay. They made it unequivocally clear that the court expected nothing less than a fair, impartial, and independent investigation.

Venegavkar then sought to delay matters further, stating that the SIT needed either a formal complaint or the inquiry documents relied upon by the Magistrate, who had already concluded that the force used by the police was excessive and unjustified. The Magistrate’s report also noted that the deceased’s fingerprints were not found on the weapon allegedly used to fire at the police and questioned the police’s claim of self-defence, describing it as “suspicious and unjustified.”

These arguments did not go down well with the bench. The judges forcefully reminded the prosecutor that the SIT was fully empowered to act independently and had no excuse not to lodge an FIR when a cognisable offence had clearly been committed. “We only want an independent, fair, and impartial probe not influenced by anyone,” Justice Mohite-Dere said, as per a report in the LiveLaw, warning that the credibility of the justice system was at stake.

According to this report, Justice Gokhale, clearly frustrated, stated, “These are very sorry state of affairs… You ought to have complied with our orders. We have no option but to initiate contempt proceedings.” Justice Mohite-Dere added that the situation was “sheer misuse of the court’s time.”

Following these sharp admonishments, Venegavkar requested a short adjournment to consult with senior police officers. After the break, he returned with the submission that an SIT officer, Mangesh Desai, would be appointed as the formal complainant. Based on his complaint, the FIR would finally be registered.

April 25: Bombay High Court slams Maharashtra CID for brazen defiance, warns of criminal contempt

On April 25, the Bombay High Court had come down heavily on the Maharashtra Police, particularly the State CID, for wilfully defying its April 7 order directing the transfer of investigation in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case to a court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale strongly criticised the State for what it called a “brazen violation” of its orders, warning that such conduct amounted to criminal contempt of court.

Notably, on April 7, the High Court had constituted an SIT under the leadership of IPS officer Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and directed the State CID to hand over all investigation papers to the SIT within two days. Despite the clear directive, the CID failed to comply.

During the April 25 hearing, amicus curiae and senior advocate Manjula Rao informed the court that the CID had not yet transferred the case papers. The bench further learned from a letter sent by a State-constituted Judicial Commission to the High Court Registry that it too had not received the relevant documents, exposing the extent of non-compliance.

Visibly irate, Justice Gokhale warned the CID of potential criminal contempt proceedings, stating unequivocally that orders of the court must be followed irrespective of whether the State agrees with them. According to the report in the LiveLaw, she noted that although the State had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the April 7 order, there was no stay on the order, making it binding. “The rule of law must be followed,” she said. “Whether you agree with the order or not, you have to comply with it. Otherwise, we will be constrained to issue contempt of court proceedings.”

Justice Gokhale remarked that the CID’s refusal to act constituted a “fit case” for contempt proceedings. She emphasised that if the State was so aggrieved by the order, it should have urgently moved the Supreme Court for relief—something it had failed to do despite almost a month having passed since the order. “Speaking for myself,” she said as a report in the LiveLaw, “this is actually a brazen violation of our orders.”

Justice Mohite-Dere echoed the same concern. She noted that merely filing an SLP does not suspend the effect of a court’s directive and that State authorities cannot ignore binding orders on that basis. “What prevents you from transferring the papers?” she asked, as per LiveLaw’s report. “Is there any sanctity to our orders or not? Are you not in contempt?” She further held the SIT chief, Lakhmi Gautam, accountable for not informing the court about the non-compliance, adding that he too was potentially in contempt.

The court ordered both Gautam and a senior CID officer to appear post-lunch. When the hearing resumed, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar urged the bench to defer the matter until the Supreme Court heard the SLP. But Justice Gokhale remained unimpressed, saying: “We just cannot be waiting endlessly. You can always seek urgent listing in the apex court. It is not as if you have never done it before.”

Venegavkar then attempted to mitigate the situation by informing the court that Gautam had constituted his SIT team. However, Justice Mohite-Dere interjected sharply: “What is the use of constituting a team when they do not have the papers? What will they do—just sit around?”

Justice Gokhale added that the failure to hand over the documents was not only deliberate but also conveyed a dangerous message to the public. “What message are you giving to the citizens? That court orders are passed just for show?” she asked. “Either hand over the documents or face contempt.”

The court then directly questioned Prashant Waghunde, Superintendent of CID, Navi Mumbai, about why the documents hadn’t been handed over. Waghunde said he was acting under instructions from his superiors, but refused to name them. This evasiveness frustrated the bench further. As per the LiveLaw report, Justice Mohite-Dere said, “Your officer may be helpless, but we are not. We’re trying to protect him, but he refuses to name his superior. We didn’t want to make him a scapegoat, but he’s leaving us no choice.”

The matter was passed over multiple times to allow senior officers to reconsider. Finally, Prashant Burde, the Additional Director General of Police (State CID), appeared virtually. He apologised for the events that had transpired and assured the court that the documents would be handed over to the SIT. The judges, accepting this assurance, held back from initiating contempt proceedings—for now.

This hearing marks a critical juncture in the Badlapur ‘fake’ encounter case, highlighting serious concerns about institutional accountability, the enforcement of judicial orders, and the State’s duty to uphold the rule of law. The court’s intervention underscores its determination to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied, especially in cases implicating custodial killings and potential abuse of power by law enforcement officers.

Background of the case

On April 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court had ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged fake encounter of a young man in Badlapur. The court observed that the case warranted a thorough investigation since it was undisputed that the deceased died of bullet wounds inflicted by a police officer while in custody. Emphasising that crimes committed by law enforcement impact not just individuals but the entire society, the bench warned against brushing aside the public’s legitimate interest in such investigations.

The SIT was to be led by Mumbai’s Joint Commissioner of Police, Lakhmi Gautam, who was granted the autonomy to handpick officers for the probe, which would be supervised by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). The Maharashtra CID was directed to transfer all relevant documents to the SIT within two days.

The case originated from a petition filed by the parents of the accused in the 2024 Badlapur school sexual assault case, who was allegedly killed in a staged police encounter on September 23, 2024. The parents claimed that their son was murdered in custody.

During initial hearings, the High Court had criticised the State for its superficial investigation. The judges remarked that it was difficult to believe that the five police officers present in the van with the deceased were unable to restrain him and even suggested that the alleged shootout could have been avoided.

A significant development came in January 2025 when a Magistrate submitted a report under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The report squarely blamed the five police officers for using excessive and unjustified force. It pointed out that there were no fingerprints of the deceased on the firearm he allegedly used, and dismissed the police’s claim of acting in private defence as suspicious and unsubstantiated.

However, in a surprising turn, the deceased’s parents sought to withdraw their petition in February, citing repeated delays in the justice process. On February 6, they told the court they no longer wished to pursue the case. Notably, in December 2024, they had informed the bench that their pursuit of justice had led to their expulsion from their village, forcing them to live on the streets and beg for survival.

The very next day, on February 7, the High Court expressed shock after learning that a Thane sessions court had stayed the Magistrate’s report—one that had validated the parents’ claims and found substance in the allegations of a fake encounter. (Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here)

Why the Bombay High Court’s orders were essential?

The Bombay High Court’s interventions in the Badlapur fake encounter case were not merely judicial oversight—they were a necessary assertion of constitutional accountability in the face of systemic police impunity. The facts were damning: the deceased was in police custody, died of bullet injuries, and a judicial inquiry found the police action unjustified. And yet, despite this, the Maharashtra Police showed blatant resistance to lodging an FIR—one of the most basic procedural requirements in any cognisable offence. It was only under sustained judicial pressure, including threats of contempt that the State relented.

The Court’s insistence on constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the direct supervision of a specific senior officer—Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam—was a deliberate choice. It was designed to break the vicious cycle of internal shielding that often accompanies custodial violence cases, where the same force accused of wrongdoing is entrusted with investigating itself. The High Court recognised that institutional independence was not an abstract virtue but a practical necessity to ensure truth, justice, and public confidence in the rule of law. Its actions served as a critical check on executive inaction and obstruction.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dilute this framework—by handing the SIT back to the Director General of Police—undermines that very goal. The DGP remains the head of the police force in Maharashtra, which includes the accused officers. While technically adhering to the idea of an SIT, this move defeats its intended purpose: an independent and impartial investigation. It signals a return to hierarchical control, where influence and pressure may once again stifle accountability.

The Bombay High Court’s orders were essential because they embodied the judiciary’s duty under Article 21—to protect the right to life and dignity, especially when the violator is the State itself. In a country where custodial deaths and fake encounters are far too common and justice remains elusive, these orders were a rare moment of institutional resolve. Diluting them not only weakens the probe in the present case but sets a troubling precedent that may discourage lower courts from taking similarly bold steps in future cases of State excess.

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court did what the law demands: it held the State to its constitutional responsibilities. Its orders were essential because they confronted not just the facts of one death, but the structure of impunity that enables many more. The Supreme Court’s retreat from that framework is not just a legal recalibration—it risks becoming a moral failure.

Related:

A Judgement of Conscience: Bombay High Court orders SIT Probe into alleged fake encounter in Badlapur

Bombay High Court directs filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against the 5 cops held responsible for death of accused in Badlapur Sexual

Biased and Preconceived: Bombay HC criticises police inquiry into Parbhani custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi

The post Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As many as 18 personnel of the Uttar Pradesh Police have been named in a First Information Report (FIR)  for their involvement in an alleged fake encounter of two men in 2004. The FIR was filed on February 18, 2022 in line with a court order.

On October 3, 2004, two Chachpur villagers Prahlad and Dhanpal were caught by the Jalalabad police for their alleged role in dacoity cases. As per reports, the two men were shot dead by the police and their bodies taken away. After a 17-year-long harrowing legal battle, Prahlad’s brother Ram Kirti finally succeeded in having the case of police excess heard by a court.

According to the Indian Express, the FIR registered at Jalalabad police station, on the basis of a court directive, names then Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police, three circle officers and in-charges of 10 police stations. Further, the matter has been transferred to the crime branch of the district police. As per media reports, an investigation in this regard was already conducted in 2014 by the district police and later by the UP Police Crime Branch (CID). The authorities gave a clean chit to the concerned officers, most of whom have now retired.

Although the incident occurred before the ruling regime came to power, police excesses appear to have increased in Uttar Pradesh under the Adityanath regime. From the brutal police violence during 2019 anti-CAA protests, to repeated lathi-charge on youth protesters demanding jobs from the government, and police violence against protesting aspiring teachers in UP, looks the police have been given a virtual carte blanche!

Just this year, on January 24, 2022 a Scheduled Tribe community in Lakhimpur Kheri raged against the alleged custodial murder of a 17-year-old boy at Sampoornanagar police station. The family alleged that the police physically assaulted the boy for charges of stealing and dragged him away from their home. Before that in December 2021, a man holding his child was brutally beaten with lathis. In the video of the incident, the man is heard defending his child while the police officer tries to grab the young child away from his parent.

Related:

UP: ST boy’s family cry murder following custodial torture!
UP: Aspiring teachers call for mass protests following brutal lathi-charge
UP Dalit man who exposed SC discrimination in school being threatened?
CBI court discharges 3 police officers in Ishrat Jahan case

The post UP: 18 police officers face the music for alleged fake encounter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervenor, asked the Court to seek a status report from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), that has investigated some of the deaths, the Deccan Herald reported. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said that the government had abided by the mandate issued by the Supreme Court in the case ‘PUCL Vs State of Maharashtra’ regarding police encounters, the Herald said, noting that Rohatgi said that a post-mortem was conducted, an inquiry was opened and no complaint was filed with the district court. Rohatgi said that those who were killed had faced multiple criminal charges.

On Friday, January 11, a statement from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said that four UN Special Rapporteurs expressed alarm over at allegations that police have carried out at least 59 extrajudicial killings in Uttar Pradesh since March 2017. The experts in question are Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, and Ahmed Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief.

The statement said that the human rights experts had submitted detailed information on 15 cases to the Indian government, most involving individuals from Muslim communities living in poverty. “Evidence indicates the killings took place in police custody. In all of the cases, the police said the killings were during encounters and in self-defence,” the statement noted.

“We are extremely concerned about the pattern of events: individuals allegedly being abducted or arrested before their killing, and their bodies bearing injuries indicative of torture,” the experts said, adding, “We have also received allegations of corruption including the police demanding money to release the victim prior to the killing”. They said, “Unfortunately we are continuing to receive reports of other similar cases of killings as well as threats and harassment”.

The experts also expressed concern that the Supreme Court’s guidelines have not been followed, including the police not notifying families of the killings, not examining the scene, not providing post-mortem reports to families, and not transferring cases to an independent investigative body. They also highlighted reports that victims’ family members and human rights defenders working on the matter have been targets of harassment, death threats, and false criminal cases in apparent efforts to intimidate them, the statement said. The Special Rapporteurs also mentioned remarks made by high-ranking state government and police officials “seeming to incite, justify or sanction killings,” the statement said. The experts have called for an immediate review into the use of force by the Uttar Pradesh Police “to ensure all law enforcement operations were conducted in compliance with international standards,” and for immediate, independent and thorough investigations into the alleged killings, and for perpetrators to be prosecuted. The stressed that victims’ family members and human rights defenders must be protected, and that actions targeting them must be probed.

In July 2018, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government over a petition that alleged that multiple fake encounters had been conducted in the state. The NHRC also issued a notice to the UP government in November 2018. In 2017, the Uttar Pradesh Police said that within six months of UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s government, there were 420 encounters in which 15 people were killed. By 2018, the state’s police had carried out 1,038 encounters in which 32 people were killed, The Wire reported, noting that in July 2018 the OHCHR also wrote to the Indian government calling for investigations into alleged “fake encounter” killings in Manipur.

In February 2018, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) took note of the “encounter spree” in Uttar Pradesh, speculating that the state government “flaunted” the incidents to show it was ‘hard on crime’ to attract investors.

The post Supreme Court to hold detailed hearing over police encounters in UP next month appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

The post Aligarh Encounter Victims’ Families, Mostly Women, Forced to Live in a Tent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay observed that slack investigation by the state agencies has been eroding the people’s faith in the system

 

The post Jharkhand HC orders CBI probe in Bakoria fake encounter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shakeel, mother of Rayees Habibullah while talking to TCN (Picture by Khalid Khan)

“Please convey to the Indian media that my son wasn’t a militant, he was innocent,” she pleads in agony.

Her son, Rayees Habibullah, was killed during an encounter with the government forces in the Fateh Kadel area of Srinagar. His family allege that he was “beaten to a pulp” and then taken to some unknown location before being killed and strongly refute claims that he was an ‘accomplice’ of the slain militants.

On Wednesday midnight, SOG (Special Operation Group) of Jammu & Kashmir police along with the CRPF (Central Reserved Police Forces) barged inside the family’s house.

“I was sleeping with my daughter when forces broke our door. We got very much frightened after they started abusing and kicking us while looking for militants,” says Shakeela.

The four-storey house of Habibullah Hanga, the father of Rayees Ahmad, has a bakery shop on the ground floor which was run by Rayees. The encounter destroyed the entire building along with killing his son and two militants.

“We haven’t received post-mortem report because we were told that we will get the death certificate from the Municipal Committee Srinagar,” said his mother.

“When I saw his dead body, it was bruised. He probably was shot in his head,” said a neighbour who wished not to be named. He added that the forces laid a cordon around 12 am and the firing started around 6 am.

“My house is close to Hanga’s home. I saw a militant coming out of the window and firing many rounds towards security forces,” he says.

Raees is survived by his wife, Nargis, and 15-month-old son, Mohammad.

Shakeela said she went upstairs and woke her husband and sons. When her husband saw the force, he collapsed.

“He fell on the ground and my younger son shifted him to the hospital,” said Shakeela, adding “her elder son was asked by the forces to accompany them.”

“They searched our house but found nothing,” said Shakeela.

Shakeela further added that forces took Rayees upstairs and asked him to locate the militants. They started beating him, she said. “I could hear his screams sir mujhe kyun maar rahe ho, maine kya kiya (Sir why you are beating me? What did I do?) They beat him ruthlessly and we couldn’t do anything as we were surrounded by forces,” she says.

Shakeela, her daughter and other female members of the family were asked to stay in the kitchen, which is located in the rear of the house.

Forces told them to stay inside as they “will burst crackers outside”.

“At 6 am, we were asked to come out and were shifted to another house,” said Shakeela adding that “she saw forces firing a shell towards here house which later went into flames.”

The family said there was no militant present in the house.

“Had there been any militant the forces would not have been able to search,” an inconsolable Shakeela said.

While she was narrating the story, people were getting ready for the funeral of Rayees, whose body was yet to be handed over to his family.

The mother of the slain youth said government forces dragged her son out of the house and whisked him away in a jeep. “I begged the security official to release my son and he told me that he will be released soon. At 6 am we were told that your son was an OWG (Over Ground Worker) and he has been killed in the encounter,” she said, as tears rolled down her cheeks. “This is all a lie,” she added.

“He was an innocent guy who was supporting his family by running a bakery shop, he was killed and latter dubbed as an OGW of the militants,” says a neighbour of Rayees who wished not to be named.

Two militants and a policeman were killed and three CRPF personnel got wounded in the gunfight, the police said. The Police also added that they were investigating the role of Rayees who was killed along with two militants in a gunfight.

“The complicity of Rayees Ahmad who was part of the group in providing shelter and logistics to the militants is being investigated,” said a Police spokesman.

A top police official while talking to TwoCircles.net said that militants were hiding at Hanga’s house and he ‘voluntarily’ decided to be with them. He was an ‘accomplice,’ he added.

“We had strong inputs about the presence of militants in that house and we were informed that Rayees provided logistical support to them,” he said wishing anonymity because he is not authorised to speak to media.

Courtesy: Two Circles
 

The post Srinagar encounter: Family says son ‘beaten to pulp’, taken to unknown location before being murdered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Interview with Urmilesh
Interviewed by Pranjal Produced by Newsclick Team,

BJP had promises strong governance and better law and order situation while campaigning for 2014 and UP elections. Instead, it has delivered fake encounters, chaotic law and order situation and unconstitutional legislations. Will things change in 2019? That is an answer everyone is seeking.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in
 

The post BJP: Promise of Acche Din, Fake Encounters and Political Alternative appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, in other reports that have emerged since the said encounter took place, journalists alleged that though the security forces have claimed that they killed one Kosi Sori, it was actually Podiyamii Jogi, a resident of Jarpalli who was killed. In an interview given to this writer, Linga Kodopi claimed, “We can prove her identity, but what proof the security forces have that they killed Kosi Sori? We do not even know who Kosi Sori is.”

Linga has raised some crucial questions in the video. “It does not look plausible that an encounter between security forces and Naxalites has taken place here. Why would the Naxals be residing in a home and not forests? Moreover, there was not even a meeting taking place. If at all a meeting was taking place, why people from only these few houses would be participating in it?”

Following the encounter, a fact finding team comprising the Adivasi leader Soni Sori, journalists Linga Kodopi, Pushpa Rokde and Nitin Rokde, and block head Punem visited the area.

Podiyami Jogi was 18 years of age. Her mother had died and her father married again. Just like other villagers, she would help anyone who would visit from outside. She would give them food and water, which is usual for any Adivasi household. She also worked on fields.

As per Linga, the villagers said that on December 15, 2017, Podiyami Jogi, a resident of Jarpalli village in Bijapur, was visiting a relative namely Madavi Ayate in another village Hempuram, not too far from her residence. She left the next morning at around 9 am, carrying a bag on her shoulder. Reportedly, this is when the security forces surrounded her from all sides. Scared, she started running. Linga is anguished, “The terror of security forces is so paramount that anybody will run. Even I am scared of them”. This is why Podiyami kept running. After running for about 500 metres, as Podiyami was going to enter a house, the security forces allegedly fired on her. The villagers told Linga, “On hearing the sound of gunfire, when we reached the spot, we saw that the policemen were hurriedly wrapping up a woman’s body in plastic.”

Illustration: Sushmita
​
The villagers had to struggle even to take the dead body, says Linga. They were beaten up by the policemen and the body was taken to Pamed police station on a cot. After a couple of hours, a group of women from the village reached there.

The villagers told Linga and Soni Sori that they were beaten up when they asked for the dead body. Though the women returned, the boys who went to the police station were not allowed to leave. They were released only on the next day. The boys returned and told the villagers that the dead body was in Bijapur, so the villagers went to collect it on December 16. The villagers preserved the body for 6 days in the hope that someone will come and investigate the encounter, said Soni.

“It is not the security force’s prerogative to house-search every household to look for Naxalites. If they want to search then they can roam in the forests. The bullets that I have shown in the video, have all been fired on houses. What sort of encounter takes place in the ambit of one’s house?” asks Linga. Usually the police say that encounters take place in forests because they get scared and fire for fear of their life. However here the situation was different. He further adds, “If you see the open field and the houses, it is hard to imagine a situation in which a circumstance for the said encounter could have been created.” He questions about the need to carry out such an ‘encounter’ when the security forces could have easily shot Podiyami on her feet if their intention was to stop and catch her. He says that by labelling Adivasis  killed in this manner as Naxalites, the security officials make themselves eligible for prize money and other accolades.

Soni Sori says, “When I visited the spot, I saw that Podiyami’s dead body was preserved by the villagers.” They told her, “We will not carry out the last rites of the dead body. Our culture and traditions are getting destroyed because of this fight. Today, we can’t even perform our rituals and customs to send off our dead.” She mentions, all of the 2500 odd villagers who had gathered, said that we will preserve our culture while simultaneously fighting this war. Finally, waiting for justice, Podiyami Dul, the deceased’s father buried the body on December 21. He has highlighted that Podiyami was the sole bread winner of the family and was looking after him and her brother.

As if all this was not enough, the police officers have allegedly threatened the Adivasis not to enter the forests. “CM Raman Singh and others do not get tired of claiming that they are finishing off Naxalites, but what they are actually doing is finishing off Adivasis.”

Related Articles
— NHRC Holds 2007 Salwa Judum Ops to Account, issues Notice to Chhattisgarh
— Is Vinod Verma’s Arrest Just the Tip of the Iceberg?
— How the Salwa Judum Looted and Killed Villagers in Kondasawali Village in Chattisgarh
— Not just Muslims, Adivasis have also suffered at the hands of ‘Gau Rakshaks’

The post Kosi Sori is Podiyami Jogi: Another fake encounter in Chhattisgarh? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The father of the victim – Munfaid Hussain, allegedly a 30-year-old rape accused from Khadkhadi – alleged in a written complaint to the police that his son was called to Rewari by officials of the CIA (Central Investigation Agency, Haryana) to meet them. They allegedly promised him that all “false” cases registered against him would be closed if he agrees to work for them.

The victim’s father has in a written complaint to police alleged that on the evening of September 15,  2017, his son called him and his father in law (Khurshid s/o Rehmat) to village Dekadi, PS Nuh. There, reportedly, Munfaid told them that members of a state police team in Haryana– namely, Vikrant, Shakti Singh, Satish and Siddharth –had called him to Rewari to meet them, and threatened and blackmailed him. They have allegedly told Munfaid that they will close all the false cases registered against him if he does some work for them. The victim’s father and Father in Law, in order to escape the everyday harassment by the police, advised Munfaid to do whatever the police are asking him to do.
 
Thereafter, on the morning of September 16, the victim’s father was informed that his son was shot at Kala Pahad ki Ghhati, Tauru Nuh Road at around 2-3 am. In his complaint, the father has alleged that the above named officials have conspired and murdered his son.
 
Thereafter, it is alleged that, in a blatant attempt to cover up the incident by the police, the FIR lodged by the Police, is not based on the complaint given by the victim’s father. The FIR is infact based on the statement given by Inspector Mastana, CIA Staff, Nuh, Haryana. The FIR states that Inspector Mastana, came across a white pick-up truck (registration number of the truck not mentioned in the FIR) in the middle of the road near an abandoned mining Kanta in Tauru Ghhati, where he found an unidentified person grievously injured. The victim was taken to Nalhad Hospital, Nuh, where he was declared dead.
 
According to Islam Hussain, the victim’s father, Munfaid was in constant touch with the police officers regarding a false criminal case that had been filed against him and that Munfaid from time to time, on the instruction of the police officers, used to carry out some work for them.
 
Khurshid, the father in law of the deceased mentioned the names of Vikrant and Shakti Singh, saying that Munfaid had even given one of them Rs 2000 a few days back to remove his name from the case.
 
Islam, Munfaid’s father has alleged that when he reached the mortuary he saw the doctor along with the police officers were tearing the clothes present on Munfaid’s body and trying to remove something from his body.  When he objected, he was abused and asked to leave the room.
 
The residents of village Rozkemeo informed the fact finding team that Munfaid was accompanied by his three friends when he had gone to meet the police officers, who saw Munfaid being shot by the police. The eye witnesses have informed the residents of the village that the police officers came in a green Bolero Car which stopped right infront of their vehicle. Munfaid who was sitting in a car with his three other friends was shot at by the officers.The three friends, scared for their own life and limb ran away from the spot and informed the villagers about the murder. The residents of the village also informed the fact finding team, that the eye witnesses perceiving a threat to their lives have not yet given a statement to the police and are currently in hiding.

“In order to avoid everyday harassment by the police, the deceased father and father-in-law advised him to do whatever the police are asking him to do,” said a fact-finding report prepared by the members of Citizens Against Hate (CAH) that visited the victim’s village and met his family and friends.

Details
On the morning of September 16, the victim’s father was informed that his son was shot at Kala Pahad Ki Ghatti at Tauru-Nuh road at around 2-3 a.m. “He then went to the mortuary of Nuh Hospital, where he identified the body of his son,” said the report.The father in his complaint has alleged that the CIA officials “conspired and murdered” his son.

“However, in a blatant attempt to cover up the incident, the FIR lodged by the police is not based on the complaint given by the victim’s father. It is, in fact, based on the statement given by one Inspector Mastana, a CIA official, in Nuh, Haryana,” the report alleged.

The FIR (no. 0358, dated September 16) has been filed at Tauru police station in Nuh district under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence of the offence or giving false information to screen offender) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, against unknown persons.

According to the FIR, Inspector Mastana spotted a white pickup van (registration number not mentioned in the FIR) in the middle of the road near the abandoned mining Kanta at Tauru Ghatti, where he found an unidentified person with grievous injuries.

“The victim was taken to Nalhad Hospital where he was declared dead. It was found that the person was shot in his neck by unknown people. The CIA staff contacted the police station and the FIR was registered,” states the FIR.

As per the post-mortem report, “a reddish contusion was found on the front right side of the chest and firearm entry wounds were found on the front right side of the neck. A deformed metallic bullet of size 1.5X1 cm was found over the right side of second thoracic vertebrae”.

Munfaid, according to the fact-finding team’s report, was accompanied by three of his friends, when he had gone to meet the police officials.

“They (the friends) saw Munfaid being shot by the police. The eyewitnesses informed the residents of the village that the policemen came in a green Bolero, which stopped right in front of their vehicle. Munfaid, who was sitting in his vehicle with his three other friends, was shot at by the officials. The three friends, scared of their own lives, ran away from the spot and informed the villagers about the murder. The eyewitnesses, perceiving a threat to their lives, have yet not given their statements to the police and are currently in hiding,” said the report.

Munfaid’s father Islam Hussain said his son was in constant touch with the police officials regarding a “false” case of rape lodged against him. “Munfaid was working for the police at different occasions. The cops were constantly calling him on the evening of September 15, asking him to do a piece of work for them. In return, his name would be removed from the rape case,” Hussain told the fact-finding team.

Quoting residents of Rozkemeo village, the fact-finding team alleged in its report that the police had first taken Munfaid’s body to Nalhad Medical College and Hospital at Nuh district. “He was declared dead there. The police pressurised doctors there to conduct a post-mortem. However, the doctors refused to conduct the post-mortem on an unidentified body because, as per procedure, the post-mortem on an unidentified body can be done after three days,” said the report.

The police then took the body to CHC, Nuh, for the post-mortem. But the doctors there also turned down the police request. The cops then had to call a doctor from Palwal to carry out the post-mortem. “The cops were in haste because they wanted the autopsy to be conducted before the deceased’s family members could arrive so that the evidence present of the body could be tampered with,” said the report citing residents versions.

The victim’s father alleged that the “doctor along with the policemen was trying to destroy the evidence present on the deceased’s body”. “I saw them tearing his clothes and trying to remove something from his body. When objected, I was abused and asked to leave the room,” he said.

The victim’s father gave a written complaint to the police at around 3 pm wherein he named six CIA staff as accused. He was assured that a FIR would be lodged on the basis of his complaint. But it was not done. A FIR was already registered by the police at 10.39 am on September 16 based on the statement given by Inspector Mastana. No separate FIR was lodged after that.

According to the police version, Munfaid’s body was found in a white pickup van in the middle of the road near an abandoned mining Kanta at Tauru Ghati. The place is located on a short stretch of road running along a hill on the way from Nuh to Tauru, just after Shonk village in Nuh district.

“On reaching the place, we found that the road had been closed off after Shonk village by the order of the state government for road repair and construction works. Those manning a check post there said that no cars were being allowed to go through. When asked about the site where the incident took place, they said the place is just a short distance from the other check post where the roadblock ended,” the team said in its report.

They claimed that the villagers in Shonk informed them, that on the night of September 15, a Bolero with police beacons had rushed past the village in the direction of the alleged spot after 12 night. A PCR van had also gone there the next morning between 6-7 am.

This is not the only case of alleged encounter in Nuh district. “A surge in cases of extrajudicial killings has been witnessed in the past few years in Nuh and Faridabad districts,” said the fact-finding team.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia   

The post 30-Year-Old ‘Rape Accused’ from Haryana Found Dead, Family Suspect Foul Play appeared first on SabrangIndia.

  

On December 16, while simply trying to collect a red ant nest, teenager Somaru Pottam was gunned down leading to widespread protests on the alleged Metapal Fake Encounter

In a breakthrough for Survivors of state repression and Maoist violence in Chhattisgarh, the High Court today ordered the exhumation of the body of 13 year old Somaru Pottam, killed after being allegedly tortured on December 16. The order was passed today on a petition filed by his parents, Kumma and Jamil Pottam, yesterday. A second post portem will also be carried out at the Maharani District Hospital Jagdalpur tomorrow, Sunday, December 25 as part of the inquiry ordered by the court on serious allegations of an extra judicial killing. The HC ordered inquiry has to be completed within 3 days and “considering the seriousness of the allegations of torture and killing”, the inquiry team should be constituted at the discretion of the Commissioner, Jagdalpur and a “video graph of the second post mortem shall also be prepared and preserved.” The court order specifically directs that the petitioner parents be allowed to remain present during both the exhumation of the young boy’s body and the subsequent second post mortem “The post mortem  report should be kept in a sealed cover”, the order reads.

The parents of the deceased, 13 year old Somaru Pottam filed a case in the High Court yesterday, on December 23 and demanded a judicial investigation of the matter. After the death of Somaru on December 16, villagers had protested in front of the Gangaloor Police Station and demanded a fair post-mortem which the police had denied. 13 year old Somaru was out with his friends on the morning of  December 16 after threshing of grains and was trying to collect a red ant nest from a Mahua tree when he and his friends were rounded up by security forces hiding in bushes nearby. While everyone else ran away, little Somaru who was short of hearing and was facing skin rashes couldn’t comprehend and escape.

 Kumma Pottam, father of Somaru, who speaks only Gondi recounted the events at a Press Conference organised by People’s Union of Civil Liberties(PUCL) in Bilaspur Press Club today. “That day, police and armed forces entered into our village and started intimidating people. Many ran away but they caught me and my cousin near our house and led us to the place where they had already tied Somaru to a tree and were beating him mercilessly. 3-4 of the D.R.G were stabbing him with their bayonets. Despite our cries and pleas to stop, they continued torturing Somaru and then shot him from a close distance in his chest, collar bone and abdomen. Then they lay the body on the ground, removed Somaru’s t-shirt and knicker and put on a black rebel uniform on his dead body. After putting a pistol near the body, they clicked pictures”.

Stories of torture and deaths have become common and widespread in this Adivasi heartland. Villagers have alleged that, after barbarically killing Somaru, the police ordered his own father and kith and kin to carry the dead body after them to the Gangaloor Police Station. They then sent the body for post-mortem to Bijapur Hospital and handed over the naked remains of little Somaru wrapped in a plastic sheet demonstrating extreme disrespect to human lives especially those of Adivasis. According to Kumma Pottam, they were also forced to put thumb prints in documents that they couldn’t read after the post-mortem.

Advocate Shalini Gera appeared for the petitioners. The High Court has ordered an inquiry within 3 days that will entail exhumation of the body and its repeat post mortem. Villagers had earlier only buried the body as they were hoping that another post mortem by independent authorities could be conducted. The Commissioner of Bastar Division has been asked to preside over the proceedings so that investigations are fair.

The spine chilling events that unfolded in Patelpara of adivasi village Metapal in district Bijapur on the morning of December 16 are, as has become the norm, one of contradictory narratives. On one hand the police claim that the encounter of a 13 year old to be one of a dreaded Maoist, while local villagers have put forward an entirely different version to the fact-finding team comprised of human rights activists and journalists. According to Metapal residents, a 13 year old child was cornered, beaten, tortured mercilessly and shot in cold blood in front of his parents. A post-mortem was conducted hurriedly, without following due procedures, and the gunning down was quickly touted as another glorious victory of police over armed rebels.

The High Court Order may be read here
 
 

The post Chhattisgarh Fake Encounter: Exhume Body of 13-year-old, Re-do Post-mortem, Orders HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.