‘Refusal to investigate undermines rule of law’: Bombay HC orders SIT probe against cops over Badlapur case ‘encounter’

The SIT will be supervised by Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch) Lakhmi Gautam and headed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.

The high court said, “The case requires thorough investigation as it is undisputed that the deceased succumbed to bullets fired by a police officer when he was in police custody.”

“The refusal to investigate a crime undermines the rule of law and erodes public faith in justice and allows perpetrators to go unpunished,” a bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale added.

It said the police authorities shall follow the principles laid down in the Supreme Court judgment in the Lalita Kumari case, including registration of First Information Report (FIR), and “ensure that the case which prima facie discloses the commission of a cognisable offence, is taken to its logical end.”

The court allowed a plea by the father of the deceased seeking an SIT inquiry into their son’s custodial death. It also refused the state’s request seeking a stay on the operation of its judgment to challenge it before the Supreme Court.

A magistrate inquiry report dated January 17, submitted to the high court, has said that it “found substance” in the “false encounter” allegations made by the parents of the deceased. It also said that the use of force was “not justified and contention raised by police personnel of the right of private defence comes under the shadow of suspicion”.

“The state’s reluctance to even register an FIR has left the petitioner feeling helpless, forcing them to forego closure over their son’s untimely death. Such negligence weakens public trust in institutions and compromises the state’s legitimacy,” the high court noted in its judgment, and said that the same cannot be permitted and the court cannot be a “mute spectator”.

“We are constrained to intervene as restraint on our part would result in failure of justice. Hence we are left with no other option but to constitute an SIT,” the high court noted.

Earlier, the bench had questioned the state government as to why its Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had not registered an FIR against the five policemen escorting the accused, when he was killed in an “encounter”, after a magistrate’s inquiry indicted them.

It asked the state that once the Accidental Death Report (ADR) had been filed, was the same not required to be taken to its “logical end” and an FIR registered. In response, Senior Advocate Amit Desai, special public prosecutor for the state government, had told the high court that it was probing the case in an “independent” manner and will decide on the outcome once the investigation concludes.

However, senior advocate Manjula Rao, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter, argued that the FIR should have been registered immediately after the magistrate’s inquiry report. Rao was appointed after the parents had also informed the bench that they did not want to pursue their plea further due to personal difficulty.

The court said, “Closing the matter in absence of petitioners would have been easy, but a constitutional court cannot ignore a state’s failure to fulfil its obligations,” and criminal law can be set in motion by anyone including the police “in interest of justice.”

The HC said the parents’ grievance “cannot be brushed aside by the state only because the complainant hails from poor strata of the society.” It added, “Our criminal justice system will acquire credibility only when the citizens at large are convinced that justice is based on the foundation of truth.”

The court directed the state CID to hand over all papers to the SIT within two days and the SIT shall take appropriate steps in the matter. It also asked the SIT “make every endeavour to unearth the facts and take the case to the logical end” by conducting a probe fairly and impartially from all angles uninfluenced by anyone.”