Pune: Accused Allegedly Paraded on Police Vehicle Bonnet; Inspector Transferred as Human Rights Commission Probe Begins

Reported by Mubarak Ansari
Katraj, 6th August 2026: Senior Police Inspector Mansingh Patil has been transferred from Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station to the Pune Police Special Branch amid an ongoing human-rights inquiry into viral videos showing young suspects—including a reported juvenile—being publicly paraded, assaulted and tied to the bonnet of a police vehicle.

A team from the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) visited the police station on Wednesday, August 5, examined documents and records, and sought information and explanations from officers connected with the incident. The team remained at the station for much of the day as part of its preliminary fact-finding inquiry.

The controversy arose after videos circulated widely on social media, purportedly showing suspects detained in a murder case being publicly humiliated within the jurisdiction of Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station. One of the suspects was reportedly a juvenile.

In a 10-page order dated August 3, 2026, the MSHRC’s Full Bench registered suo motu proceedings in Case No. 4848/13/23/2026, connected with Case No. 4774/13/23/2026.

The bench comprised MSHRC Chairperson Justice A.M. Badar and members Justice Swapna Joshi and Sanjay Kumar, former IPS officer.

According to the commission’s account of the videos and media reports, police arrested four young people on or around July 20 in connection with the murder of a young man earlier that month. The order said the suspects were allegedly taken to residential societies, forced to walk on their knees and assaulted in public.

The commission said the footage appeared to show police “tying three young accused to the bonnet of the Police vehicle” and parading them through Pune’s streets. It also alleged that private individuals were given an opportunity to assault them in the presence of police personnel.

In unusually strong language, the bench described the alleged events as a “barbaric incident” and said that, if the videos were ultimately found to be authentic, the conduct would project the functioning of Pune Police as “Jungle Raj.”

The order said tying suspects to a police vehicle and publicly parading them would, if established, constitute a “flagrant violation of constitutional rights, statutory protection and the fundamental tenets of due process of law.”

The bench further observed that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity and that suspects cannot be branded guilty in the public eye before their guilt is determined through due process. It referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in the D.K. Basu case, safeguards governing arrest and provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The reported involvement of a juvenile intensified the controversy because Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act prohibits the disclosure of a child’s name, photograph or other details that could lead to identification, except in narrowly authorised circumstances.

The commission issued notices to Maharashtra’s Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, directing them to submit action-taken reports and personal affidavits by the next hearing. It also sought responses from Pune Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar, Zone II Deputy Commissioner of Police Milind Mohite and Inspector Patil.

A preliminary fact-finding inquiry was assigned to Special Inspector General of Police Datta Karale, assisted by MSHRC Registrar Vijay Kedar, Superintendent of Police Viswas Pandhare and the commission’s Investigation Wing. The team was directed to submit its report within one week.

The commission warned that all authorities concerned must cooperate with the investigating team and said non-compliance could invite consequences under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

However, it expressly clarified that “all observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and shall have no bearing on deciding this matter on merit.” The proceedings, therefore, do not constitute a final finding of guilt against Patil or any other officer.

The matter is scheduled to be heard before Division Bench Court No. 1 at 11 a.m. on August 20, 2026.

The inquiry remains open. Under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, the commission may recommend compensation, prosecution, disciplinary proceedings or other suitable action if its inquiry establishes a human-rights violation or negligence by a public servant.

Responses from Patil and the other officers named in the order were not included in the material provided.