The Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked some tough questions to police about the circumstances leading to Badlapur sex assault accused Akshay Shinde’s death in custody. The court was hearing a plea filed by Shinde’s father, who alleged that his son was killed in an encounter. He also demanded a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Calling it a revenge killing, AIMIM chief Assaduddin Owaisi said, “Those who seek revenge are gangsters and mafia. The Constitution ensures justice through courts. There is a difference between justice and revenge. We are seeking justice.”

Two days after Shinde’s death, hoardings congratulating Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis were seen across Mumbai. The hoardings declared — Badla Pura (revenge complete) — and featured Fadnavis holding a gun. These hoardings do not carry any organisation’s name.

Reacting to the posters Owaisi said, “When revenge is sought by putting up posters, then what is the need for a court? Shut down the courts. The Constitution ensures justice, and when the guilty are punished through the court, it is not revenge but justice. The courts can give capital punishment. That is justice.”

“When Pakistani terrorists attacked Mumbai, we captured Kasab, and brave police officers sacrificed their lives during the assault. The system didn’t execute him on the spot. He was imprisoned, tried in court, and sentenced to death. Kasab was eventually hanged and buried in jail. That is justice,” Owaisi added.

Akshay Shinde, 24, was accused of sexually assaulting two minor girls at a school in Badlapur where he worked as a sweeper. He was being taken from Taloja Jail to Badlapur on Monday when he allegedly snatched a policeman’s pistol and opened fire. An assistant inspector was injured and Shinde was killed in retaliatory firing, the police have said.

Addressing the bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan, counsel for petitioner Anna Shinde argued that the accused had met his parents a day before the incident and was not in a mental state to commit the acts alleged by the police.

When the court inquired about the cause of death, the state government’s counsel stated, “bullet wound on the left thigh.” The public prosecutor explained that the pistol allegedly snatched by Shinde could be unlocked in two ways. “One way is pulling the upper portion, the deceased pulled the slider, it popped and he fired,” he said.

However, the court expressed skepticism, saying this is “hard to believe.” The bench pointed out that it requires strength for the slider to pop and remarked, “A layman cannot fire a pistol unless he is trained; a revolver is different.”

The court further questioned the prosecutor’s assertion that the deceased fired three bullets, with only one hitting the police officer, asking, “What about the others?”

The court then said that the accused should have been shot below the knee, to which the state government responded that the officer who shot him “did not have time to think.”

“How could we believe that the police could not overpower the accused? Till he fired three shots, where were you? You could have easily overpowered (him). It is not like he was a hefty man. This can’t be termed as an encounter. This is not an encounter,” the bench said.

The bench also asked whether there were CCTV cameras along the route, and the state government replied that footage from all cameras would be reviewed.

“We expect the investigation to be impartial. If we see something, we will be inclined to pass an order,” the court stated.

The court expressed concern regarding the delay in handing the case papers over to the state CID, emphasizing that “time is of the essence in any investigation” and that delays could lead to public suspicion. It questioned, “What prevented you from handling the papers yesterday?”

The court also ordered that the call data records of all five occupants of the police vehicle—four officers and the accused—should be collected.

Meanwhile, the Opposition has raised doubts about the police’s account of the circumstances surrounding Shinde’s death.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut expressed that the police’s version is suspicious but noted that there is no need to show sympathy for Shinde. He claimed, “This murder or encounter was done to save the main accused. How convincing is it that a school janitor snatches a gun from a policeman and fires a locked weapon? This is the basic question.”

He further alleged, “The school is linked to BJP and yesterday’s story (Akshay’s killing) was done to save them.”

Aaditya Thackeray, another Shiv Sena (UBT) leader, raised several questions on X. He asked, “Where are the trustees of the Badlapur school? Why are they being protected by the bjp-mindhe regime? What about mindhe’s local chap—Waman Mhatre—who asked a journalist why she was questioning the incident as if she herself had been raped? Why is he being protected? Will the cases against the citizens who protested be taken back? They were treated like gangsters. They simply were protesting against the refusal of the police to file a complaint from the victim for a week? Who was the police station protecting? It is understood that the trustees of the school have affiliation to the bjp. And they are being protected. Is it true? Will the regime answer?”

NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule questioned how the handcuffed accused could snatch a pistol from a policeman in a moving vehicle. “A policeman suffered a bullet injury. Even the police are not safe in Maharashtra. If there is CCTV footage of the incident, it should be made public,” she said.