CW-2003-0019Palamu, JharkhandJudgment 12 August 2003

Daltonganj Man v. State of Jharkhand and Others

The Jharkhand High Court allowed the father's writ after his son [name withheld] was killed on 7 December 2001 when a suspected parcel bomb exploded at Daltonganj. The court found the Daltonganj police patrolling party negligent: instead of summoning explosive experts, the Inspector had the civilian open the lunch-box device, killing him on the spot and injuring police personnel. It held this was not gross negligence but a carefree attitude, distinguishing the custodial-death award in Bahlen Balmuchu. The court ordered Rs 1 lakh compensation plus transposition of the deceased's STD booth licence to one brother and employment for the other. 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 August 2003 in W.P.(S) No. 4640 of 2002, the Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Tapen Sen, J.) returned findings adverse to the Inspector, Daltonganj Police Station patrolling party, Palamu, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).

Register number
JH 03 CW 0002
Case reference
W.P.(S) No. 4640 of 2002 / AIR 2004 Jhar 66
Court and date
Jharkhand High Court (Coram: Tapen Sen, J.), 12 August 2003
Officer(s) at the material time
Inspector, Daltonganj Police Station patrolling party, Palamu
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“even if it is not a case of gross negligence, it can at best termed to be a case of a carefree and/or non chalant attitude on the part of the members of the police.” (at para 15)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
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 Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 12 August 2003 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.

“even if it is not a case of gross negligence, it can at best termed to be a case of a carefree and/or non chalant attitude on the part of the members of the police.” (para 15)

Institutional response

1
12 Aug 2003

Order issued

Concluded
Jharkhand High Court External · Binding

The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: AIR 2004 Jhar 66
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.