Somnath Suryawanshi Custodial Death: Maharashtra Govt Moves SC Against Bombay HC Order To Register FIR Against Cops

The Maharashtra government has moved the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court that directed the registration of an FIR against police personnel in connection with the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi, contending that the order was premised on a “presumption of guilt against the police authorities”.

Urvi Mahajani Updated: Saturday, July 26, 2025, 11:38 PM IST
State challenges HC order in custodial death case of 35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi | File Photo

State challenges HC order in custodial death case of 35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi | File Photo

Mumbai: The Maharashtra government has moved the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court that directed the registration of an FIR against police personnel in connection with the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi, contending that the order was premised on a “presumption of guilt against the police authorities”.

Suryawanshi Died in Judicial Custody Amid Protests

Suryawanshi died on December 15, 2024, while in judicial custody at a government hospital in Parbhani, after being arrested during violent protests that erupted in violation of curfew orders.

The High Court, on July 4, ordered the Police Inspector of New Mondha Police Station to register an FIR and hand over the investigation to a Deputy Superintendent of Police, relying on a judicial inquiry report.

State CID Already Probing With 180+ Witnesses Examined

In its Special Leave Petition (SLP), the state has contended that the HC acted prematurely, bypassing a detailed and ongoing investigation being carried out by the State CID, which had already recorded over 180 witness statements and examined relevant medical and forensic material. The state submitted that it was denied an opportunity to place this comprehensive record before the High Court.

Judicial Report Names Absent Officers, Says State

The state further alleged serious factual and procedural lapses in the judicial inquiry report, including the inclusion of names of police personnel who were not present during the incident — some of whom were on sanctioned leave, deployed in court, or medically unfit. “One of the officers named in the report was on maternity leave,” the petition noted.

Medical Expert Opinion Attributes Death to Natural Causes

Crucially, the government said the report ignored key medical and forensic evidence. Although the initial post-mortem referred to “shock following multiple injuries,” a subsequent expert opinion by JJ Hospital in Mumbai concluded that the death was due to natural causes — specifically coronary artery disease with acute coronary syndrome — aggravated by Suryawanshi’s pre-existing condition of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The deceased, it added, had informed medical officers about his health condition at the time of arrest.

“The approach of the Hon’ble High Court, with due respect, appears to be premised on a presumption of guilt against the police authorities,” the state’s petition said. “Such directions… demoralise the very institutions that work to uphold law and order.”

No Allegations of Police Mistreatment During Custody

The state also pointed out that Suryawanshi had made no allegations of mistreatment during his appearances before the magistrate or in medical examinations, and that an Accidental Death Report (ADR) had been promptly registered by the authorities.

HC Cited Modified Precedent in Badlapur Case: Govt

The HC had relied on the judgement in the case of Anna Maruti Shinde by which it directed registration of FIR against policemen allegedly responsible for the death of accsued in the Badlapur sexual assault case, where two minor girls were assaulted in a local school.

Supreme Court Hearing Set for July 30

The State’s appeal claims that the reliance on this judgment is misplaced since that ruling was subsequently modified by the Supreme Court, which clarified that no second FIR was necessary in such cases. The apex court is expected to hear the matter on July 30.

Published on: Sunday, July 27, 2025, 02:45 AM IST

RECENT STORIES