Daijiworld Media Network – Mumbai
Mumbai, Jul 27: The Maharashtra government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court's order directing registration of an FIR against police personnel in connection with the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi.
The state contended that the order was based on a “presumption of guilt against police authorities” and overlooked ongoing investigations by the State CID, which has already recorded statements from over 180 witnesses.
Suryawanshi died on December 15, 2024, while in judicial custody at a government hospital in Parbhani after being arrested during violent protests that violated curfew orders.
On July 4, the High Court directed the Police Inspector of New Mondha Police Station to register an FIR and transfer the probe to a Deputy Superintendent of Police, citing a judicial inquiry report.
In its Special Leave Petition (SLP), the state argued that it was not granted an opportunity to present the findings of the CID investigation before the court.
The government has raised concerns about factual and procedural lapses in the judicial inquiry, noting that it included names of police officers who were either on sanctioned leave, assigned to court duty, or medically unfit at the time. One of the named officers was on maternity leave, the state pointed out.
The petition also highlighted that a subsequent expert opinion from JJ Hospital, Mumbai, attributed Suryawanshi's death to natural causes—coronary artery disease with acute coronary syndrome—exacerbated by his known Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
“No allegations of police mistreatment were made by Suryawanshi either before the magistrate or during medical examinations,” the state said, adding that an Accidental Death Report (ADR) had already been registered promptly.
The High Court had cited the Anna Maruti Shinde judgment related to a custodial death in the Badlapur sexual assault case. However, the state argued that this ruling was later modified by the Supreme Court, which clarified that a second FIR was not required in such situations.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on July 30.