Baruipur Gaighata Samserganj: Three encounters, one familiar story. What questions arise?

Taking an accused person in police custody to recreate the crime, an alleged attempt to snatch a police officer’s firearm and escape and then the accused being shot dead by the police. Three consecutive alleged police encounters in West Bengal have followed strikingly similar narratives. First came Baruipur, followed by Gaighata and Samserganj. In each case, the police account has centred on allegations that the accused tried to flee and attack the police. The incidents have consequently raised questions not merely about criminal investigations but also about the exercise of police power and the role of the judiciary.

There is, understandably, a strong public demand for punishment when the allegations concern grave crimes such as rape and murder. But should that punishment be delivered through a court of law or should the judicial process come to an end with a police bullet? A series of alleged encounters in West Bengal has brought this question into sharp focus. Against the backdrop of Uttar Pradesh, where police encounters have been presented as a key instrument of law enforcement under Yogi Adityanath’s government, the significance of the developments in West Bengal becomes all the more pronounced.

The first incident in this recent sequence in West Bengal occurred in Baruipur. On July 7, Prabhas Mondal, one of the accused in the sexual assault and murder of an 11-year-old girl, died while in police custody. According to published accounts, he was being taken to recreate the crime when he allegedly attempted to snatch a police officer’s firearm and escape. The police then opened fire, resulting in his death.

The circumstances surrounding the incident, as well as the police account of what transpired, prompted questions. Even when a person stands accused of a heinous crime, their death before trial makes it impossible for the case against them to proceed to its conclusion. The allegations can no longer be fully tested, the evidence cannot be examined in the course of a trial and the accused is denied the opportunity to defend themselves. Crucial stages of the judicial process remain incomplete.

The controversy surrounding police encounters did not end with the Baruipur incident. Instead, the deaths reported from Gaighata and Samserganj in the final week of October have revived concerns about the recurrence of an eerily similar pattern.

On the morning of October 25, the bloodied body of a 17-year-old girl was recovered from Gaighata, a border area in North 24 Parganas adjoining Bangladesh. According to her family, the previous day, October 24, she had gone with friends to a local function near her home. At around 11 pm, she received a phone call and left the gathering. When she failed to return even late into the night, her family began looking for her. Her body was recovered the following morning.

After the body was found, the family lodged a complaint alleging rape and murder. During the investigation, the police arrested one of the girl’s relatives. On the morning of October 27, however, reports emerged that the accused had died while in police custody.

According to accounts published by the media, citing police sources, the accused had been taken to the scene in the early hours of Tuesday to recreate the crime. He allegedly attempted to seize a police revolver and flee. The police claimed that he tried to fire the weapon, injuring a police officer in the process. The police then returned fire, killing the accused.

No formal statement from the police had been issued on the incident at the time of reporting.

The deceased man’s brother also expressed doubts about the police account. Speaking to the media, he questioned whether his brother could plausibly have attempted to snatch a police officer’s firearm and escape. He further alleged that the girl had visited his elder brother’s shop on several occasions and tried to create trouble there. These claims, too, require verification as part of the investigation. Neither the family’s allegations nor the police version, however, can substitute for an impartial inquiry.

Within hours of the Gaighata incident, news emerged of another alleged encounter in Samserganj, Murshidabad. This time, the man who died in police custody was the prime accused in the murder of Sujit Mondal, a BJP worker.

Sujit Mondal had gone missing in September and his murder subsequently came to light. Three accused persons were arrested in connection with the case that month.

On October 27, the police took the prime accused to the Dakbangla area of Samserganj to recreate the crime. He allegedly attempted to snatch a police officer’s firearm and flee. He was subsequently reported to have died in what has been described as a police encounter.

As in Gaighata, no comprehensive official account of the incident in Samserganj had emerged. The precise circumstances in which the shots were fired, how the accused came into possession of a firearm and whether the police response was necessary are questions that can only be answered through an independent investigation.

The accounts emerging from these incidents bear a striking resemblance to what was reported in Baruipur: a crime-scene reconstruction, an alleged attempt by the accused to seize a police weapon and escape and death in police firing. The recurrence of this sequence has inevitably raised questions about the transparency of police investigations and the need for independent scrutiny.

How similar are these incidents to Uttar Pradesh’s encounter model?

The developments in West Bengal have inevitably brought Uttar Pradesh’s model of policing into the conversation. Since Yogi Adityanath became chief minister in 2017, his government has repeatedly invoked a policy of “zero tolerance” towards crime. Police encounters have become a recurring feature of the state’s approach to law and order.

Citing a report published by the Uttar Pradesh Police, several media reports have stated that more than 17,000 alleged encounters have taken place in the state during Adityanath’s tenure, resulting in 289 deaths. According to the police, in several of these incidents, the accused attempted to seize police firearms and escape. But statistics alone cannot establish the legality of police action. The circumstances of each encounter, the necessity and proportionality of the force used and the need for an independent investigation into every death remain equally important.

A similar controversy followed the deaths of the men accused of raping and murdering a veterinary doctor in Hyderabad in 2019. The Telangana Police claimed that the accused had attempted to seize police firearms and escape while being taken to recreate the crime. The police subsequently opened fire, killing all four men. Amnesty International condemned the killings as extrajudicial executions and stressed the importance of ensuring justice through the courts.

The political context in West Bengal is also significant. On December 18, 2025, during an election campaign rally, Suvendu Adhikari had declared that those accused of rape would not be sent to court: they would be handed over in the morning and “disposed of” by the afternoon. In light of that statement, some have drawn a connection between his rhetoric and the subsequent incidents in Baruipur, Gaighata and Samserganj.

On October 27, after attending several meetings in Delhi and meeting Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Adhikari returned to Kolkata and commented on the two recent encounters. He said the police had already explained the reasons for the encounters and that it would therefore be inappropriate for him to comment further. At the same time, he said the police had been given the freedom to take immediate decisions in cases involving drug-related offences and atrocities against women. He also assured police personnel that he would stand by them if they encountered difficulties.

Several leaders from the ruling side have also publicly defended the police action. Minister Ashok Kirtania said that those who committed such crimes against women and children would face precisely this kind of consequence. Dilip Ghosh maintained that no one was above the law and that public faith in the police needed to be restored. BJP leader Rahul Sinha, meanwhile, expressed concern over the encounters and called for appropriate measures to prevent such situations from recurring.

But taking a firm stand against crime and bypassing the judicial process are two entirely different things. Giving the police the freedom to perform their duties cannot mean granting them permission to act outside the law.

The Constitution and the right to life

Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are fundamental to the rule of law. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court made it clear that any procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. The protection of the law, therefore, extends even to those accused of the most heinous crimes.

Whenever the police claim to have fired in self-defence, that claim must be independently examined. Investigators must establish whether opening fire was unavoidable, whether the situation could have been brought under control by other means and whether the police acted within the bounds of the law.

When an accused person dies, the opportunity to establish the allegations in court disappears. Witnesses may never have to testify and the full circumstances surrounding the alleged crime may never emerge through a trial. If other people were involved, determining their roles and identifying the actual perpetrators may also become more difficult.

The most striking commonality between the incidents in Baruipur, Gaighata and Samserganj is that, in all three cases, the accused were reportedly being taken to recreate the crime when they allegedly attempted to seize police firearms and escape. They subsequently died in police firing. This repetition naturally raises questions about what actually transpired in each case and whether the police response was lawful.

Crimes such as rape and murder demand prompt investigations and the punishment of those found guilty. But the responsibility for determining guilt and imposing punishment rests with the judiciary. The police are responsible for investigating offences, gathering evidence and producing the accused before a court. It is for the judicial system to determine whether the accused is guilty.

If the rule of law itself is placed in question in the name of taking a tough stand against crime, public confidence in the justice system may be weakened further.

Crime must be punished, but punishment must follow the law. When a case comes to an end with a police bullet before the allegations against the accused have been proved in court, the question remains: has justice truly been served?