Register FIR in Parbhani custodial death with a week: HC to state

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Somnath Suryawanshi’s mother, Vijayabai Suryawanshi, in April 2025, alleging police brutality had caused her son’s death

MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court on Friday directed the police to register a first information report (FIR) in the custodial death of law student Somnath Suryawanshi, who was arrested in Parbhani in December 2024 following violence in the city over the desecration of a glass-encased replica of the Constitution.

35-year-old Somnath Suryawanshi died in judicial custody on December 15, 2024. (Hindustan Times)

The division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh observed that prima facie evidence in the case indicated that Suryavanshi had been tortured in custody and directed the Mondha police station in Parbhani to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by his mother Vijayabai within one week. The bench also asked the superintendent of police (SP) of Parbhani to hand over the investigation to an officer of deputy superintendent of police rank.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Vijayabai Suryawanshi in April 2025, alleging police brutality had caused her son’s death and seeking an independent, court-monitored probe into the incident.

The petition – filed through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi – sought registration of a first information report (FIR) against police officers and their associates responsible for Somnath Suryawanshi’s custodial death, grievous injuries to other victims and outraging the modesty of women in police custody.

On December 10, 2024, a replica of the Constitution kept near a statue of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar outside the railway station in Parbhani was vandalised following a public meeting organised by Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha, a far right group. The incident led to a spate of reactionary protests and strikes and prompted the imposition of prohibitory orders and combing operations.

The police arrested over 50 young men and women in connection with the protests, including Somnath Suryavanshi, who was visiting Parbhani to appear for his final-year law examination. The arrested accused – mostly from marginalised social groups – were slapped with stringent charges and allegedly assaulted, abused and threatened in police custody, prompting at least 23 separate complaints.

Vijayabai Suryawanshi’s petition referred to the chain of events, saying, “The assault on Somnath Suryavanshi was so brutal that he died within hours of being admitted to the state-run hospital in Parbhani after being sent to judicial custody.” Somnath’s postmortem report too said his death was caused primarily from “shock due to multiple injuries”, the petition said.

A police officer named Ashok Ghorband subsequently offered ₹50 lakh to Vijayabai Suryawanshi for not filing a police complaint, she mentioned in her plea.

“Given the events and the behaviour of certain police officers and staff, their deep-rooted caste-based hatred was openly visible,” the petition said, urging the court to suspend the concerned police officers, order an independent court-monitored probe and disclose the magisterial inquiry report on the incident.

Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, representing Vijayabai, submitted that Suryawanshi was unnecessarily roped by the police, with material on record to manifest “gross violation of human rights”.

“In clear terms, Somnath died due to the police authorities,” Ambedkar remarked.

Public prosecutor AB Girase denied the possibility of any illegality in the case and submitted that the inquiry was still ongoing. Therefore, the court could direct the registration of an FIR based on contrary documents or incomplete inquiry, he said.

The bench of justices Kankanwadi and Deshmukh took serious note of the delay in registration of the FIR, considering the presence of evidence, the magisterial inquiry and postmortem reports, and inquest noting visible injuries.

“The postmortem report shows that there were 24 visible injuries. Of course, there are internal injuries also”, the court observed.

The court criticised the state criminal investigation department (CID) for seeking independent opinion from medical experts at JJ Hospital in Mumbai, instead of approaching the seven-member medical team that had conducted the autopsy.

The next hearing is scheduled on July 30.