CW-2002-0012Ahilyanagar, MaharashtraJudgment 30 January 2002

Newasa Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench, Justices S.S. Parkar and D.S. Zoting) awarded symbolic compensation of Rs 10,000 to a Newasa man for a mala fide 2.5-day detention in May 1990. Arrested on 5 May 1990 on a threat complaint by a witness in an earlier criminal case against him, he was kept in custody without any magistrate's orders and produced only on 7 May 1990 in s.110 chapter proceedings, then released on a Rs 1,000 bond. The Court held arrest under s.41(2) CrPC without obtaining s.113 orders was unwarranted and unexplained, granted compensation (kept symbolic for lapse of time) payable in four weeks via the Additional Registrar, and left the State free to inquire and proceed against the erring officer including by criminal action. 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 30 January 2002, the Bombay High Court (Coram: S.S. Parkar, D.S. Zoting, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: PSI (In-charge), Newasa PS, Ahilyanagar; Executive Magistrate, Newasa, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 10,000.

Register number
MH 16 CW 0002
Case reference
(2002)104BOMLR8
Court and date
Bombay High Court (Coram: S.S. Parkar, D.S. Zoting, JJ.), 30 January 2002
Officer(s) at the material time
PSI (In-charge), Newasa PS, Ahilyanagar; Executive Magistrate, Newasa
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 41(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“As we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was kept in detention for a period of two and half days without producing him before the appropriate authority with mala fide intention without giving any explanation justifying the said …” (at para 19)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 10,000.
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 Bombay High Court judgment dated 30 January 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.

“As we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was kept in detention for a period of two and half days without producing him before the appropriate authority with mala fide intention without giving any explanation justifying the said …” (para 19)

Institutional response

1
30 Jan 2002

Order issued

Concluded
Bombay High Court External · Binding

The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2002)104BOMLR8
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.