Bombay High Court Directs FIR Registration In Custodial Death Of Dalit Law Student Detained Over Protest Against Hindu Atrocities In Bangladesh

The Bombay High Court directed the registration of an FIR in the custodial death of a 35-year-old law student, who had been taken into custody for protesting against the alleged atrocities committed against Hindus in Bangladesh in 2024.

A Criminal Writ Petition was filed by the mother of the deceased seeking directions to lodge an FIR against the police officers responsible for the custodial death, and to frame guidelines to deal with after the inquiry made by the Magistrate into cause of death in police custody, among other reliefs.

The Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh observed, “Deceased Somnath was in judicial custody and, therefore, was in jail as aforesaid. Now, when there was prima facie material on record i.e. on the basis of inquest panchanama, postmortem report, report of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and the complaint application by the petitioner, a cognizable office was made out and, therefore, State ought to have registered the FIR. The guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 1, were 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 complaint application and the copy of the same to the superior and, therefore, we are of the opinion that those material which she was placing before the police, were sufficient for registration of the FIR.”

Advocate Prakash Ambedkar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate A. B. Girase represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

It was the case of the Petitioner (mother of the deceased) that his son was beaten and arrested, among over fifty youth for protesting against atrocities allegedly given to Hindu’s in Bangladesh. It was contended that the arrest of the petitioner's son was illegal and was subjected to inhuman atrocities. The rights of the arrested persons were violated.

The Petitioner submitted that her son was sent to police custody for two 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 pain and died of heart attack.

Furthermore, it was submitted that in the post-mortem primary reasons were assigned by the concerned Doctor as “shock due to multiple injuries”. It was also submitted that as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in cases of custodial death with visible injuries, a criminal case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code must be registered.

Court’s Analysis

The Bombay High Court observed, "In respect of offences those occur against a person in police custody or custodial death, in our opinion, the stand that is required to be taken by this Court should be different. Being the protectors of the constitutional rights of a citizen, who by virtue of the order passed in a judicial process, is in the custody, then if his constitutional rights are violated by an officer or any other citizen in jail, then at this prima facie stage, we say that the interference is required.t being the protectors of the constitutional rights of a citizen, who by virtue of the order passed in a judicial process, is in the custody, then if his constitutional rights are violated by an officer or any other citizen in jail, then is such cases the interference is required."

Further, the Court noted that the the entire record shows that there were injuries on petitioner's son and the copy of the postmortem report show that there were 24 visible injuries on the body of petitioner's son. The question would then arise as to who has caused those injuries. The team of seven doctors has given a probable cause of death as “shock following multiple injuries".

The Court further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari V. State of U. P. & Ors. (2014) wherein it was held that when a cognizable offence is disclosed on the basis of a complaint application, then the police are duty bound to register the FIR and take up the investigation.

Accordingly, the Court directed for the registration of FIR on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint.

Cause Title: Smt. Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi V. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:17179-DB )

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Prakash Ambedkar and M. B. Sandanshiv

Respondents: Advocate A. B. Girase

Click here to read/download Order