CW-2002-0009Gurdaspur, PunjabJudgment 12 November 2002

Batala Man and another vs State of Punjab and others

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Reword enquiry finding to: Addl. Sessions Judge did not establish abduction by the named ASI/constable but found it appeared from the evidence they had been abducted by the police (para 1). No 'eliminated' finding was recorded by the enquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 12 November 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1294 of 1996, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: K.S. Garewal, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Station Sadar Batala; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar Batala; Constable, Police Station Sadar Batala, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 9 lakh (Rs 9,00,000).

Register number
PB 06 CW 0003
Case reference
Civil Writ Petition No. 1294 of 1996 / (2002) 11 P&H CK 0058
Court and date
Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: K.S. Garewal, J.), 12 November 2002
Officer(s) at the material time
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Station Sadar Batala; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar Batala; Constable, Police Station Sadar Batala
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Compensation for death in police custody is an independent remedy which the heirs of the deceased are entitled to irrespective of the outcome of the criminal trial.” (at para 4)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 9 lakh (Rs 9,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 12 November 2002 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Compensation for death in police custody is an independent remedy which the heirs of the deceased are entitled to irrespective of the outcome of the criminal trial.” (para 4)

Institutional response

1
12 Nov 2002

Order issued

Concluded
Punjab and Haryana High Court External · Binding

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 900,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2002) 11 P&H CK 0058
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.