Pune police have suspended sub-inspector Akshaykumar Narayan Gadgade for allegedly recording a ₹30 lakh robbery complaint as a property-missing report at Market Yard police station, following an earlier suspension of the station’s senior inspector in the same case.
The action was ordered by Additional Commissioner of Police Rajesh Bansode. According to Civic Mirror’s report, the suspension followed an initial finding that Gadgade failed to register a case despite circumstances indicating that a serious robbery had taken place.
The incident dates back to 7 October 2026, when a trader allegedly carrying cash was attacked in the Market Yard police station area. The complainant, Shravan Shankarlalji Devasi, approached the police station to provide information and register a complaint. Instead of registering a case of robbery, the police recorded the matter as a property-missing incident, the report said.
The case came to light during an investigation by Swargate police into an attempted robbery in Salisbury Park. Police arrested Nihal Navnath Adagle, 19, of Mundhwa, and Yash Pravin Sonawane, 24, of Manjari, in connection with that investigation. During questioning, investigators allegedly uncovered information about a separate incident in which a worker of a trader in the Market Yard area was assaulted and ₹30 lakh was looted.
The report said the alleged robbery was linked to an earlier attempt to rob a trader in Salisbury Park. In that incident, the trader reportedly resisted and did not release a bag containing cash. The subsequent investigation indicated that the robbery in the Market Yard area had not been properly registered at the police station.
Following the discovery, Pune Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar directed that a robbery case be registered at Market Yard police station and suspended senior police inspector Vishwajeet Jagtap. Gadgade’s suspension is the second disciplinary action against an officer from the station in connection with the handling of the complaint.
The suspension order described the conduct as an initial indication of an attempt to suppress a serious crime. It also characterised the officer’s actions as negligent, undisciplined and irresponsible, stating that they damaged the public image of the police force. The order formed the basis for the action taken by Additional Commissioner Bansode, according to the report.
The case highlights the operational importance of accurate crime registration at urban police stations. The first classification of a complaint determines how the incident enters police records, which unit investigates it and what legal provisions are applied. In this instance, the alleged mismatch between the reported incident and the initial entry became apparent only after another police unit’s investigation connected suspects to the robbery.
The police action now leaves the case subject to the registered robbery investigation and the disciplinary process against the officers involved. The supplied report does not provide details of the robbery case number, the value recovered, or the next hearing or departmental proceedings against the suspended officers.
