Crime Bharati Vidyapeeth

Two FIRs against 18 Pune police personnel over custodial assault

Two FIRs were registered at Pune's Bharati Vidyapeeth police station on Thursday over alleged custodial assault and public humiliation of suspects, including minors, in July. They follow a Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission fact-finding inquiry and a complaint by CID Deputy Superintendent Sanket Gosavi. In all, 18 police officers and personnel were booked, 13 in one case and 11 in the other. One FIR concerns four assault accused; the other, eight children accused of a minor's murder, and invokes the SC/ST Act.

Written by AI from Indian Express — Cities · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 24 Sept 2026, 11:22 pm IST

Source

Indian Express — Cities · read the original report ↗

#police misconduct#fir#human rights#pune police#custodial assault

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

Two FIRs were registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth police station on Thursday against 18 police officers and personnel in total, 13 in one and 11 in the other, with some common to both. — Figures appear in the source and are attributed to the FIRs registered on a CID complaint; internally consistent.
The FIRs are based on a Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission fact-finding inquiry begun suo motu after videos circulated on social media. — Attributed to MSHRC proceedings as described in the source.
Four accused in an assault case were allegedly beaten and publicly humiliated at an SRA colony on July 7, with no general diary or vehicle log entry. — Attributed to the first FIR citing MSHRC findings; unverified allegation.
Eight children in conflict with law were allegedly held beyond the permissible period, paraded on a police vehicle bonnet and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board on July 25; four belong to a Scheduled Caste. — Attributed to the second FIR, which invokes the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Juvenile Justice Act.
MSHRC described the parading as a 'barbaric incident' that would 'bring shame' to Maharashtra. — Direct quote attributed to MSHRC in the source; Commission said observations were prima facie.

Written by AI from Indian Express — Cities · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Legal Analyst

This is not an ordinary complaint: the FIRs against 18 police personnel flow from a human rights commission's own suo motu fact-finding inquiry, and the complainant is a CID officer from within the police force itself. Legally, the case turns on three axes — use of force in custody, detention beyond the permissible period, and the statutory protections owed to children under the Juvenile Justice framework. The invocation of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the second FIR materially hardens the procedural terrain. But an FIR only records allegations; it establishes no guilt.

The Commission itself clarified its observations were prima facie and would not prejudice final adjudication, which preserves the accused officers' presumption of innocence in the criminal process.
The allegation that the children were held beyond the permissible period and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board only on July 25 goes to the core statutory duty of prompt production before the Board.
The recorded absence of a general diary entry or vehicle log-book entry for the SRA colony trip is evidentially significant, since it makes it harder to characterise the episode as a documented official act.
Where the SC/ST Act is invoked, trial before a designated special court and tighter constraints on anticipatory bail typically follow as a matter of procedure.
Some officers, including the then station in-charge, are named in both FIRs, which raises the distinct question of supervisory or command responsibility alongside direct participation.

What to watch — Watch the pace of the CID investigation, whether departmental action such as suspension or transfer follows, and whether the named officers move the High Court to quash the FIRs.

The story establishes allegations and the fact of registration only — it does not establish culpability of any officer, nor does it say whether arrests or departmental action have occurred.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 7 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

Two FIRs have been registered at Pune's Bharati Vidyapeeth police station against its own officers and personnel over alleged custodial assault and public humiliation of suspects, including minors, in two separate July incidents. The cases follow a suo motu fact-finding inquiry by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC), which began after videos of the incidents circulated on social media and phone messenger groups. The complaint was filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police Sanket Gosavi of the Maharashtra police Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and the CID has been assigned the investigations. One FIR concerns four accused in an assault case; the other concerns eight Children in Conflict with Law (CCLs) accused of a minor's murder and invokes the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Key facts

Two FIRs were registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth police station on Thursday, based on the complaint of CID Deputy Superintendent of Police Sanket Gosavi.
A total of 18 police officers and personnel have been booked across the two cases — 13 in one and 11 in the other — with some common to both.
Senior Inspector Mansingh Patil, in-charge of Bharati Vidyapeeth police station in July, is named as accused in both FIRs.
First FIR: four accused in an assault case registered in the first week of July were allegedly assaulted at the police station and then taken to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) colony on July 7.
The first FIR records no corresponding general diary entry or police vehicle log-book entry showing the four had been taken to the SRA colony on July 7.
Second FIR: CCLs 1-4 taken into custody at Ambegaon Pathar police chowki on July 20, CCLs 5-7 on July 21, and CCL 8 around midnight of July 21-22; all produced before the Juvenile Justice Board on July 25.
The second FIR alleges CCLs 1, 3 and 4 were made to sit on the bonnet of a police vehicle, tied with a rope and taken on a public road; CCL 2 was made to sit inside the vehicle.
CCLs 1, 3, 7 and 8 belong to a Scheduled Caste, and the second FIR invokes the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with BNS and Juvenile Justice Act provisions.

Timeline

First week of JulyAssault case registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth police station involving four accused.
July 7The four accused allegedly assaulted at the police station and taken to the SRA colony, made to kneel, walk on the road, beaten with sticks and lathis and apologise to residents.
July 20CCLs 1 to 4, accused in a minor's murder, taken into custody at Ambegaon Pathar police chowki.
July 21CCLs 5 to 7 taken into custody; CCL 8 taken into custody around midnight of July 21-22.
July 25The eight children produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, allegedly after being held beyond the permissible period.
After videos surfaced on social mediaMSHRC took suo motu cognisance and ordered a fact-finding inquiry, calling the parading a 'barbaric incident'.
Thursday (date as reported)Two FIRs registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth police station; investigations assigned to CID.

Who has a stake

Bharati Vidyapeeth police station personnel — 18 officers and personnel booked, including Senior Inspector Mansingh Patil, PSIs Anna Darade and Nilesh Mokashi, APIs Ganesh Mohite and Snehal Thorat; face criminal prosecution.
Eight Children in Conflict with Law (CCLs) — Alleged public parading, assault and detention beyond the permissible period; four belong to a Scheduled Caste, attracting SC/ST Act protection.
Four accused in the assault case — Alleged custodial beating with sticks and lathis and forced public apology and humiliation at the SRA colony.
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) — Initiated suo motu inquiry and prepared fact-finding reports on which both FIRs are based; observations stated as prima facie only.
CID, Maharashtra police — DySP Sanket Gosavi filed the complaint; the agency has been assigned investigation of both cases.
Juvenile Justice Board — Forum before which the children were produced on July 25; custody timelines under the Juvenile Justice Act are in question.

Why it matters

The case tests whether custodial violence and public parading of suspects — including children from Scheduled Caste backgrounds — will attract criminal accountability rather than only departmental action. It also shows a state human rights commission's suo motu inquiry translating into FIRs against serving police personnel, with the investigation handed to an outside agency, the CID. Missing general diary and vehicle log-book entries point to record-keeping failures that make custodial abuse hard to detect.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

MSHRC (Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission) can take suo motu cognisance and order fact-finding inquiries into police conduct.
Children accused of offences are termed 'Children in Conflict with Law' (CCLs) and are produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, not a regular court.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has replaced the IPC; sections invoked here cover hurt, wrongful restraint/confinement, criminal force, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and public servants disobeying law.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act invoked because CCLs 1, 3, 7 and 8 belong to a Scheduled Caste.
General diary and police vehicle log-book entries are official records; their absence was cited as evidence in the first FIR.
Investigation of both Pune FIRs assigned to the CID of Maharashtra police.

Mains framing

Custodial violence and the public parading of suspects sit at the intersection of police impunity, procedural non-compliance and constitutional guarantees of dignity and personal liberty. The Pune case illustrates the typical chain of failures: alleged assault inside a police station, extra-legal 'punishment' staged in public view at an SRA colony, absence of general diary and vehicle log-book entries that would have created an audit trail, and children in conflict with law allegedly held beyond permissible custody before being produced before the Juvenile Justice Board on July 25. Aggravating factors include the vulnerability of minors and the Scheduled Caste identity of four of them, which brought the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act into play alongside BNS and Juvenile Justice Act provisions. Institutionally, the sequence is instructive: viral video evidence, suo motu cognisance and a fact-finding inquiry by the MSHRC, a complaint by a CID DySP, FIRs against 18 personnel including the station in-charge, and transfer of investigation to an agency outside the concerned station. The way forward, on the source's own logic, lies in verifiable custody records, strict adherence to juvenile custody timelines, and independent investigation so that human rights commission findings — expressly described as prima facie — are tested through criminal process rather than closed departmentally.

Key terms

MSHRC: Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission; took suo motu cognisance of the videos and conducted the fact-finding inquiry behind both FIRs.
Children in Conflict with Law (CCL): Legal term for a child alleged to have committed an offence, dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Juvenile Justice Board: Statutory body before which children in conflict with law must be produced; the eight CCLs were produced there on July 25.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: Law against atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Tribes; invoked as four of the children belong to a Scheduled Caste.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): India's criminal code under which both FIRs are registered, including offences by public servants disobeying law and causing injury.
Suo motu cognisance: A body initiating proceedings on its own, without a formal complaint — here after videos circulated on social media.

Practice questions

Custodial violence persists despite institutional safeguards. Examine the role of state human rights commissions and independent investigating agencies in ensuring accountability, with reference to recent cases.
Discuss the procedural protections available to 'children in conflict with law' under the Juvenile Justice framework, and the consequences of their violation by police.
How does the invocation of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alter the accountability framework in cases of alleged police excesses against members of Scheduled Castes?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyGambhir on two years as India coach: I accept failures too →

← All stories