The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. An Akola man, arrested on 29.9.1999 in Crime No. 205/1999, was found dead in the Ramdaspeth police lock-up on the morning of 30.9.1999; the post-mortem recorded 21 ante-mortem injuries (20 contusions, one abrasion) with death by syncope from multiple injuries. The Court rejected the police story blaming the watchmen and the medical officer, holding an Akola man died a homicidal death in police custody from brutal custodial torture and that the on-duty officers were responsible, the State having failed to explain the injuries or comply with the D.K. Basu guidelines. It directed the State to deposit Rs 1,75,000 compensation (Rs 75,000 for daughter [name withheld], Rs 50,000 each for sons and Aakash, via fixed deposits) plus Rs 5,000 costs, ordered a DIG-or-above investigation with disciplinary proceedings and prosecution of all officers on duty from arrest till death, allowed recovery from those found responsible, and ordered contempt show-cause particulars. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 17 September 2001 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 277 of 2000, the Bombay High Court (Coram: J.N. Patel, S.K. Shah, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola; Police Inspector, Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1.8 lakh (Rs 1,75,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 17 September 2001 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“only inference which the Court can draw is that the police officers who were at the relevant time on duty in the police station are responsible for the custodial violence meted out to the deceased [name withheld]” (para 14)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 175,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
