Aurangabad/New Delhi, August 1, 2025
In a critical judicial order, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the registration of an FIR in the case involving the custodial death of law student Somnath Vyankat Suryawanshi, who died in December 2024 while in judicial custody at Parbhani, Maharashtra. The Court, citing serious lapses in the initial investigation, appointed a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP)-level officer to lead the probe.
Somnath, a 35-year-old student pursuing law in Pune, had traveled to Parbhani for an examination when he was arrested during protests following an incident of vandalism near a public monument. He died on December 15, 2024, just four days after being detained. Initial claims by authorities attributed his death to natural causes, but a post-mortem revealed over 20 injury marks and stated “shock due to multiple injuries” as the cause of death.
Taking note of a petition filed by his mother, Vijayabai Suryawanshi, and represented by advocate Prakash Ambedkar, the High Court on July 4, 2025, observed that the investigation conducted by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) was neither prompt nor impartial. The Court found no justification for the CID seeking a second medical opinion from Mumbai’s JJ Hospital, contrary to the conclusive local autopsy by a panel of seven doctors.
The court ordered that the FIR be registered at Mondha Police Station in Parbhani within seven days and assigned the investigation to a police officer outside the CID to ensure independence and fairness.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Maharashtra Government approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order, particularly objecting to the inclusion of around 70 police personnel as named accused. On July 31, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directive for FIR registration but clarified that naming individuals in the FIR at this stage was not necessary.
The Court ruled that the FIR could be registered against unknown persons and that the names of individuals could be added later based on evidence collected during the course of the investigation. The decision strikes a balance between protecting procedural fairness and ensuring accountability.
This custodial death has sparked widespread concern across legal and civil rights communities, with demands for transparent investigation and justice. The High Court’s sharp observations on delay, bias, and evidence tampering have raised serious questions about the role of investigating agencies in custodial cases.
The next hearing in the matter is expected later this month as both the investigation and judicial monitoring continue.
