The HC was hearing a plea by Akshay Shinde’s parents seeking a CBI probe into the ‘fake encounter’, which took place on Sept 23 last year

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday came down heavily on a Thane sessions court judge who stayed crucial findings against five policemen by a magistrate’s inquiry into the death of Akshay Shinde, the Badlapur school sexual assault case accused. The magistrate’s inquiry report had said the cops’ use of force was not justified.
The HC judges said they were “shocked.” “This is overreaching our orders… When the matter is sub-judice before this court, (when HC is considering the question of) whether on the basis of the accidental death report (ADR) an FIR can be filed, the Thane sessions judge could have (sic) entertained such an application?” asked Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale. “We will also find out whether this amounts to judicial impropriety and insubordination by the learned judge,” they added.
The HC was hearing a plea by Shinde’s parents seeking a CBI investigation into the “fake encounter” killing of their son. The incident took place on Sept 23 last year, when Shinde was being taken from Taloja jail to the Thane crime branch. An accidental death case was registered on Sept 24. On the father’s petition, the HC expedited the magistrate’s inquiry, and the magistrate’s Jan 20 report held five policemen responsible for the death.
On Wednesday, advocate Amit Katarnaware, who represented the parents, informed the HC about the order of additional sessions judge D R Deshpande. On a criminal revision application by the five policemen, the sessions judge on Feb 21, directed “the effect and operation of the findings, particularly in two concluding paragraphs, is kept in abeyance till the next date.”
The HC judges asked questions, including, “Is it (revision plea) maintainable? Has the state informed the sessions judge? Have you contested it? How is an ADR revisable? Are you not appalled and shocked?”
The judges also asked that when the HC was seized of the matter and heard it “every 2 weeks, was it brought to the notice of the learned judge?”
“Is the state going to challenge it (the sessions court order)?” asked Justice Mohite Dere. The judges specifically asked public prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar whether the state had raised objections before the sessions court. “We argued, but it is not recorded,” he replied.
Justice Gokhale reminded that the state had told the high court the magistrate’s report is recommendatory in nature and not binding. “If you don’t have to act, then how is it (the revision application) maintainable?” she asked.