Custodial death of Badlapur case accused: HC expresses shock over Thane court order putting on hold ‘false encounter’ findings

The bench was informed about the February 21 order of the additional sessions judge, Thane, who had stayed the effect and implementation of the concluding paragraphs of the magistrate’s report. The January 17 magistrate’s report submitted to the HC had held that “false encounter” allegations made by parents of the deceased “found substance”.

The magistrate, while indicating and fixing criminal liability of five police officers, including the driver, also said that the “use of force was not justified and contention raised by police personnel of the right of private defence comes under shadow of suspicion”.

Last week, the sessions court passed an order on criminal revision application by senior police inspector Sanjay Shinde (Thane crime branch), one of the indicted officers, apprehending that findings recorded in magistrate’s report will cause impediment to his right to seek remedy against them.

Additional sessions judge DR Deshpande noted in the order that concluding two paragraphs of magistrate’s report “apparently appear to be beyond the scope” of magistrate’s inquiry and they need to be kept in abeyance for a limited period till the applicants get “elaborate and reasonable opportunity of being heard”.

The sessions judge, however, said that an independent probe by state CID into custodial death may continue.

A 23-year-old janitor arrested in August 2024 for the alleged sexual assault of two minor girls at a school in Badlapur in Thane district was shot dead while he was being transported in a police vehicle on September 23.

“This is overreaching our orders. The HC is seized of the matter whether FIR ought to be registered  by state on the basis of the magistrate’s report. Was the session judge made aware of this? While we were seized of the matter, could the sessions court have entertained (challenge to magistrate’s report)? Was the sessions court informed that parents are not interested in pursuing the matter,” asked the bench.

“There is no objection from the state (to application in sessions court). This is overstepping of jurisdiction (by sessions court) and is judicial impropriety. What can we say? This is shocking. The matter is pending and it is being heard every two weeks. Is the state going to challenge the sessions court order or not,” the bench added.

On February 6, the high court had questioned the state government as to why no FIR was filed against the officers indicted in the magistrate report and whether the matter was not required to be taken to its “logical end”.

The parents had also informed the bench that they did not want to pursue further their plea due to personal difficulty.  However, the court had said that their presence was not required and the HC will continue with the case.

On Thursday, the high court appointed senior advocate Manjula Rao as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in the matter. It asked Rao to address various issues raised in the matter, including maintainability of the sessions court order.

Posting the next hearing to March 5, the court also asked the state lawyer to take instructions from the government as to what its response to the sessions court was and if the same will be challenged.