Akshay Shinde, the 23-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting two young girls at a school in Badlapur, died after a police shooting while being transported near Maharashtra’s Mumbra Bypass on September 23, 2024. Police described self-defence; his family challenged that account, prompting judicial scrutiny.
Police gave an initial account
Officers said Shinde seized Assistant Police Inspector Nilesh More’s service weapon inside a vehicle and fired, injuring More. Another officer then shot Shinde, who died after being taken for treatment.
That sequence was an official allegation requiring independent verification, not a final finding.
Shinde had not been convicted
He was in custody facing grave allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The underlying case concerned two preschool-aged children and had generated large protests over the school’s and police’s response.
Calling him an accused preserves the legal status without minimizing the children’s right to justice and privacy.
The transport concerned another complaint
Police were taking Shinde from Taloja jail for investigation of allegations made by his former wife. The shooting ended his ability to stand trial and potentially provide evidence relevant to multiple inquiries.
Custodial authorities had an especially high duty to preserve his life and secure weapons.
The state CID took over
Maharashtra’s Criminal Investigation Department began examining the death, and the Bombay High Court monitored proceedings. Shinde’s relatives alleged a staged encounter and sought an independent investigation.
Political celebration or condemnation could not substitute for forensic evidence.
Later findings raised serious questions
A magisterial inquiry found substance in the family’s allegations and questioned the police version. Reported forensic and scene evidence, including the absence of fingerprints on the weapon, contributed to concern.
Some findings were later placed in abeyance during continuing litigation, so their procedural status must be stated.
A special team was ordered
In April 2025, the Bombay High Court directed formation of a Special Investigation Team under Mumbai’s crime-branch leadership, describing the circumstances as requiring thorough investigation. Subsequent Supreme Court proceedings clarified issues around whether another first information report was necessary.
Judicial directions advanced inquiry; they did not themselves convict officers.
The children must remain protected
Coverage of the custodial death should not expose the identities of the children or erase investigation into the school assaults and alleged institutional failures. Their cases require evidence, support and lawful accountability independent of Shinde’s death.
Sensational details can retraumatize families and prejudice proceedings.
Rule of law rejects instant conclusions
Police may use proportionate force to meet an imminent lethal threat, but a death in a secured vehicle demands rigorous examination of restraint, firearm control, medical response and every officer’s account. Public anger over sexual assault cannot authorize punishment without trial.
The accurate record distinguishes allegation from finding at every stage. Justice requires an independent explanation of Shinde’s death and continued accountability for the alleged abuse and any failures that allowed it. Neither objective is served by treating a disputed encounter as a substitute for court.
Witnesses, medical personnel and forensic experts should be protected from political pressure. Investigative findings should be published as fully as child-safeguarding and fair-trial rules allow, so that public confidence rests on evidence rather than allegiance to police, government or opposition claims.
