Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has ordered the registration of an FIR in connection with the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi, emphasizing the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of persons in custody and ensuring justice in cases of custodial violence.
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh made crucial observations on custodial deaths and their legal implications in Criminal Writ Petition No. 457 of 2025.
The court addressed the case involving a petition filed by Smt. Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, mother of the deceased. It noted the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of her son, a 35-year-old M.A. B.Ed. and final-year law student who died in judicial custody on December 15, 2024.
The case originated from events following a meeting organized by Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha on December 10, 2024, protesting alleged atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh. The court observed that when protests turned violent the next day, “police then started targeting peaceful protesters by entering their houses through unlawful combing operations in various areas, wherein over 50 youths and women, including one Somnath Suryawanshi, were arrested after beating them.”
Addressing concerns about the custodial death, the court noted: “In the postmortem, primary reasons were assigned by the concerned doctor as ‘shock due to multiple injuries’. The body of Somnath Suryawanshi was then taken to Aurangabad.”
The court highlighted the potential legal violations and brutality involved, stating, “The team of seven doctors has given a probable cause of death as ‘shock following multiple injuries’.” The postmortem report revealed 24 visible injuries on the deceased’s body, with injuries occurring between a few hours to four days before death.
In a specific directive, the court instructed: “We are constrained to direct respondent No.1 and Police Inspector, Mondha Police Station, Parbhani, to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint application dated 18.12.2024 given by the petitioner. Such FIR be registered within a period of one week, and the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, is directed to hand over the investigation to a police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.”
The court emphasized the need for compliance with constitutional rights and cited precedents from D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., which mandate that in cases of custodial death with visible injuries, a criminal case must be registered forthwith.
The court noted that despite the Judicial Magistrate’s inquiry concluding “gross violation of human rights” and attributing the death to police authorities, no FIR had been registered. It also observed that the petitioner was offered ₹50,00,000 to not file a complaint, which she refused, demanding justice for her son.
The court rejected the state’s argument that the inquiry was incomplete, emphasizing that when there is prima facie material — including inquest panchanama, postmortem report, and Magistrate’s report under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — a cognizable offence is made out requiring FIR registration.
The court has directed state authorities to ensure proper investigation and has kept the petition pending for further consideration on July 30, 2025, regarding other prayers, including framing of guidelines for custodial death cases.
Case Title: Smt. Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
