No need for separate FIR against cops involved in Shinde’s encounter, state tells HC | Mumbai news
MUMBAI: The state government on Wednesday reiterated its stand before the Bombay high court that a separate first information report (FIR) was not required to be registered against the police personnel involved in the encounter killing of Akshay Shinde, 24, arrested in the Badlapur school sexual assaults cases.
Senior advocate Amit Desai, who represented the government, submitted that since an accidental death report (ADR) had already been registered, there was no need to register a separate FIR, and that the investigation could be completed by filing a report under Section 157 of the CrPC. “You may label it anything, but legally it is an FIR. The ADR number is the FIR number,” he said.
To which, the division bench of justice Revati Mohite-Dere and justice Dr Neela Gokhale remarked, “If you are arguing that an ADR is an FIR, then it is a big statement that you are making.”
Desai replied, “In this case, I am interpreting the constitutional bench. There have been occasions where police officers have misused power, and the Supreme Court says they must be investigated. Encounter case has become a class by itself after the PUCL case. How they are to be investigated is a point to ponder before us.”
In the ‘PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties) vs Union of India’ case, the Supreme Court had laid down strictures regarding custodial deaths.
The bench was hearing the petition filed by Akshay’s father, Anna Shinde, seeking registration of FIR against the police officers, accused of killing his son while taking him for questioning in another case.
Senior advocate Manjula Rao had argued that under section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), it was mandatory for the police to register an FIR after they received information regarding the commission of a cognisable offence.
Desai, however, rebutted the argument on the grounds that the state CID was investigating Shinde’s death under different provision of criminal laws than what Rao’s arguments pertained to. He submitted that the agency was investigating the offence under section 176 of the BNSS or the erstwhile section 157 of the CrPC.
