Bombay High Court Directs FIR Registration In Custodial Death Of Dalit Law Student Detained Over Protest Against Hindu Atrocities In Bangladesh
The Bombay Excessive Court docket directed the registration of an FIR within the custodial loss of life of a 35-year-old regulation pupil, who had been taken into custody for protesting in opposition to the alleged atrocities dedicated in opposition to Hindus in Bangladesh in 2024.
A Prison Writ Petition was filed by the mom of the deceased in search of instructions to lodge an FIR in opposition to the law enforcement officials chargeable for the custodial loss of life, and to border pointers to take care of after the inquiry made by the Justice of the Peace into reason for loss of life in police custody, amongst different reliefs.
The Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh noticed, “Deceased Somnath was in judicial custody and, subsequently, was in jail as aforesaid. Now, when there was prima facie materials on file i.e. on the premise of inquest panchanama, postmortem report, report of realized Judicial Justice of the Peace First Class beneath Part 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and the grievance utility by the petitioner, a cognizable workplace was made out and, subsequently, State must have registered the FIR. The rules in Lalita Kumari v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 1, have been prima facie made out. When the petitioner went to police station and tried to lodge the FIR, her FIR was not recorded. She has given the grievance utility and the copy of the identical to the superior and, subsequently, we’re of the opinion that these materials which she was putting earlier than the police, have been enough for registration of the FIR.”
Advocate Prakash Ambedkar represented the Petitioner, whereas Advocate A. B. Girase represented the Respondents.
Case Temporary
It was the case of the Petitioner (mom of the deceased) that his son was crushed and arrested, amongst over fifty youth for protesting in opposition to atrocities allegedly given to Hindu’s in Bangladesh. It was contended that the arrest of the petitioner’s son was unlawful and was subjected to inhuman atrocities. The rights of the arrested individuals have been violated.
The Petitioner submitted that her son was despatched to police custody for 2 days, thereafter, his custody was transferred to Magisterial custody. On December 12, 2024 he died in Magisterial custody. It was contended that the police alleged that the petitioner’s son had chest ache and died of coronary heart assault.
Moreover, it was submitted that within the autopsy main causes have been assigned by the involved Physician as “shock on account of a number of accidents”. It was additionally submitted that as per the rules of the Supreme Court docket in instances of custodial loss of life with seen accidents, a felony case beneath Part 302 of Indian Penal Code have to be registered.
Court docket’s Evaluation
The Bombay Excessive Court docket noticed, “In respect of offences these happen in opposition to an individual in police custody or custodial loss of life, in our opinion, the stand that’s required to be taken by this Court docket needs to be completely different. Being the protectors of the constitutional rights of a citizen, who by advantage of the order handed in a judicial course of, is within the custody, then if his constitutional rights are violated by an officer or every other citizen in jail, then at this prima facie stage, we are saying that the interference is required.t being the protectors of the constitutional rights of a citizen, who by advantage of the order handed in a judicial course of, is within the custody, then if his constitutional rights are violated by an officer or every other citizen in jail, then is such instances the interference is required.“
Additional, the Court docket famous that the the complete file exhibits that there have been accidents on petitioner’s son and the copy of the postmortem report present that there have been 24 seen accidents on the physique of petitioner’s son. The query would then come up as to who has triggered these accidents. The group of seven medical doctors has given a possible reason for loss of life as “shock following a number of accidents”.
The Court docket additional relied upon the choice of the Supreme Court docket in Lalita Kumari V. State of U. P. & Ors. (2014) whereby it was held that when a cognizable offence is disclosed on the premise of a grievance utility, then the police are obligation sure to register the FIR and take up the investigation.
Accordingly, the Court docket directed for the registration of FIR on the premise of the petitioner’s grievance.
Trigger Title: Smt. Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi V. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-AUG:17179-DB )
Look
Petitioner: Advocates Prakash Ambedkar and M. B. Sandanshiv
Respondents: Advocate A. B. Girase