Maharashtra Police Agrees To Hand Over Probe Papers In Badlapur Fake Encounter Case To SIT After Bombay HC Rap

The Bombay High Court today rapped the Maharashtra Police for failing to transfer the investigation in the Badlapur 'Fake' Encounter case to an SIT formed by the High Court on April 7.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale remarked that the act of the State Police of not transferring the case despite clear orders amounts to 'brazen violation' of its orders and also constitutes criminal contempt of court.

During the hearing today, Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Manjula Rao informed the judges that despite orders to transfer the papers, nothing has been done yet.

The judges said that the High Court Registry received a letter from the State-constituted Judicial Commission seeking copies of the case papers. It was then that the judges learnt that the SIT has not been given papers yet.

Irked over this, Justice Gokhale warned of criminal contempt action against the State CID. Justice Gokhale remarked that the State should comply with the order whether it agrees with it to not. She noted that though a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Supreme Court against the order, no stay has been granted. Thus, the State was bound to comply with the order. 

"You have filed SLP but there is no stay on our orders, which means it still holds the ground. The rule of law must be followed... Whether you agree with the order or not but you have to comply with it. Otherwise, we will be constrained to issue contempt of court proceedings."

Noting that this was a case where criminal contempt proceedings ought to be initiated, Justice Gokhale orally remarked, "First and foremost, this should not have happened. The probe agency ought to have filed the FIR. But it didn't. Then we ordered to transfer the probe and act in accordance with law. That is not done too. You say you filed an SLP but it's been a month now, had you been so aggrieved you ought to have moved the first court (of Supreme Court) and sought urgent hearing. That's not done too. Speaking for myself, this is a case where criminal contempt proceedings must be initiated. This is actually a brazen violation of our orders."

Justice Dere too expressed the same opinion that the State cannot sit over the Court's order merely because an SLP has been filed. She remarked, "Mere filing of an SLP is of no use... It's been almost a month now, you cannot sit over a file despite our orders. What prevents you from transferring the papers? Is there any sanctity to our orders or not ? Are you not in contempt of our order? Also, the officer (SIT Chief appointed by the bench) ought to have informed us about this non-compliance. He too is in contempt. As said by my sister (J Gokhale) this is a fit case (for contempt).

The Court ordered SIT head, IPS Officer Lakhami Gautam, and State CID officer to be present in court post lunch. 

When the hearing resumed after lunch break, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar urged the judges to adjourn the instant matter at least till the time the Supreme Court hears the State's SLP filed against the April 7 judgment. 

Unimpressed with the submission, Justice Gokhale said, "We just cannot be waiting endlessly for you Mr Prosecutor. There are procedures in the apex court and you can seek urgent listing. It is not as if you have never sought urgent hearing before the top court in any matter. Again speaking for myself, I see no reason why contempt action should not be initiated against the State CID and also Mr Gautam for not complying with our orders."

To this, Venegavkar tried to submit that as directed Gautam has already constituted his team for investigating the case. However, Justice Mohite-Dere, interrupted, "What is the use of this team when they do not have the papers with them? What will they do by merely constituting a team?"

Weighing in, Justice Gokhale remarked, "This is a deliberate disobedience of our order. What message are you going to give to the citizens that we pass orders just for the sake of it? Either hand over documents or face contempt."

The bench granted time for the prosecution to ponder but after a third pass over, Venegaonkar, on instructions, continued to seek adjournment instead of agreeing to hand over documents. 

Hearing this, a visibly enraged Justice Gokhale in clear words said "we want to give out a strong message. We do not want to give a wrong message that the rule of law is demolished in the State or the Country."

The judges then grilled the CID officer - Prashant Waghunde, the Superintendent of CID, Navi Mumbai, as to on whose instructions was he refusing to hand over the documents to the SIT despite a clear court order. 

The officer responded that his 'superiors' have instructed him not to hand over the documents till the SLP is heard in the Supreme Court. 

Noting the same, Justice Mohite-Dere remarked, "Your officer can be helpless, but we cannot. We are trying to protect him but he is not ready to give us name of the person, who is instructing him. We thought we will not make him a scapegoat but he is not giving us the actual name of his superior."

Subsequently, the judges again passed over the matter, for the fourth time, for Prashant Burde, the Additional Director General of Police (State CID) to appear before it virtually since he is the highest officer in the CID section. 

Burde, then appeared before the judges, virtually, and apologised for whatever transpired since morning. The senior officer, then agreed to hand over the documents to the SIT and the judges, then dropped the idea to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers.

Background:

On April 7 2025, the High Court had ordered SIT probe into five policemen alleged to be involved in the Badlapur 'fake' encounter case. The Court had noted that the encounter required thorough investigation, as it was undisputed that the deceased succumbed to bullet injuries inflicted by a police officer, when he was in police custody. The Court had underscored that crimes affect the entire society and thus the legitimate interest of the society in the investigation could be easily brushed aside. 

It had ordered the constitution of an SIT under Lakhmi Gautam, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The officer has been given the liberty to select officers of his choice to constitute the SIT and the team would be headed by a DCP. State CID was directed to hand over all papers to SIT within 2 days.

The petition was filed by the parents of the accused in the Badlapur school sexual assault case, who was killed in an allegedly staged encounter on September 23, 2024. The parents claimed it to be a fake encounter case, alleging that their son was killed.

In the initial hearings, the judges had pulled up the State for shoddy probe in the case and even prima facie opined that it was difficult for them to accept that the five police officers present in the van, could not 'overpower' the accused. The judges had further opined that the cops could have 'avoided the shootout.'

Notably, in January, this year, a report was filed by a Magistrate under section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), in which the Magistrate concluded that the force used by the five policemen in the altercation with the deceased was 'unjustified' and that these policemen were responsible for his death. As per the report, there were no fingerprints of the deceased on the gun, allegedly used by him to fire against a cop. It further stated that the police's stance that they fired in private defence was 'unjustified and under the shadow of suspicion.'

However, the parents of the deceased told the judges that they do not wish to continue with the case and pursue it further as there was a 'delay in getting justice' to them. They had therefore, expressed their wish of withdrawing their petition, on February 6. It would not be out of place to mention that in December last year, the parents had told the bench that because of the instant case, they have been removed from their village and are forced to live on the streets and beg for their survival.

In a hearing held on February 7, the bench was 'shocked' after noting that a sessions court in Thane had stayed the findings of the Magistrate, which concluded that there was 'substance' in the allegations made by the parents of the accused in the Badlapur Sexual Assault Case that their son was killed in a 'fake encounter.'