The Bombay High Court on Monday granted more time to the Maharashtra government to make its submission on the steps it intends to take regarding the Magistrate’s enquiry report on the encounter of a rape accused in Badlapur last year, which claimed that the officers could have “easily handled the situation”.
The bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale was hearing a petition filed by Anna Shinde, the father of Akshay Shinde, who was shot dead by policemen on September 23, 2024.
Shinde, 24, was arrested in August 2024 for allegedly sexually assaulting two minor girls inside the toilet of a school in Badlapur in Thane district. He had worked as a sweeper at the school and was arrested amid a massive public outcry over the police’s lackadaisical approach.
On September 23, Shinde, while being transferred from Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai for questioning, was killed in a shootout. The police claimed that an agitated Shinde had snatched their pistol and shot Assistant Police Inspector Nilesh More in the thigh, after which he was shot in self-defence at point-blank range by Senior Police Inspector Sanjay Shinde.
The Magistrate’s report stated that the police officers could have “easily handled the situation” without resorting to force and that their actions were not justified in the case.
Owing to these observations, policemen Shinde and More filed intervention applications before the high court. Their lawyers, Senior Advocates Ashok Mundargi and Pranav Badheka, argued that they only wanted a copy of the Magistrate’s report since it was against them.
Shinde’s plea claimed that he “desires to challenge the enquiry report before the appropriate forum, and hence, for this limited purpose, the present intervention application is filed before this Court”. More argued that any adverse orders passed without hearing him would cause great harm to his reputation in society and his family. He, therefore, sought permission to intervene in Anna Shinde’s writ petition for the limited purpose of obtaining a copy of the enquiry report.
The bench said it would hear the matter at the next hearing but sought to know from Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde, “What happened to the Magistrate’s enquiry report?” During the last hearing, Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar had submitted that the police would take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, keeping in mind the Magistrate’s findings.
However, on Monday, Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that while the State CID Chief was looking into the matter, she did not have specific instructions. The bench directed that Venegaonkar be present at the next hearing and make a submission on the matter by Thursday, February 6.
In the meantime, advocate Amit Katarnaware, appearing for Anna Shinde, submitted that pressure was being exerted to oust him from the case and that he was unable to get in touch with his client to obtain his signature for pursuing the issue of compensation, given that the Magistrate’s enquiry had held the policemen accountable.