CW-2005-0003Bathinda, PunjabJudgment 9 February 2005

Maluka Man vs State of Punjab and others

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Maluka man, aged about 40, was forcibly picked up from his house in village Maluka, Bathinda, on 3 April 1992 by ASI, Head Constable and a CRPF constable, and was never seen again. A District and Sessions Judge enquiry found the two Punjab Police officials abducted him and covered it up, leading the High Court to order a CBI investigation; the surviving officer was convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in February 2003. The High Court held the forcible abduction and illegal detention conclusively proved and the State strictly liable for abusing the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty. It awarded Rs. 3,00,000 compensation (Rs. 1,50,000 to widow [name withheld] and Rs. 1,50,000 shared by six children), recoverable by the State from the guilty officials. 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 9 February 2005 in Crl. W.P. No. 769 of 1995, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Surya Kant, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Bhagta Bhaika, Punjab Police; Head Constable, Police Post Bhagta Bhaika, Punjab Police, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).

Register number
PB 03 CW 0002
Case reference
Crl. W.P. No. 769 of 1995 / ILR 2005(1) P&H 462
Court and date
Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Surya Kant, J.), 9 February 2005
Officer(s) at the material time
Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Bhagta Bhaika, Punjab Police; Head Constable, Police Post Bhagta Bhaika, Punjab Police
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Thus, forcible abduction and illegal detention of the victim by the police officials stands conclusively proved.” (at para 12)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
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 9 February 2005 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.

“Thus, forcible abduction and illegal detention of the victim by the police officials stands conclusively proved.” (para 12)

Institutional response

1
9 Feb 2005

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 300,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: ILR 2005(1) P&H 462
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.