A Mumbai man, 27, arrested in December 2002 in the Ghatkopar bus-blast case, died on 6-1-2003 at Ghatkopar Police Station; police claimed he escaped en route to Aurangabad, but a CID probe found custodial torture and death and trial began against four policemen. His mother [name withheld]'s writ was allowed with the court holding the fundamental rights of a Mumbai man and his mother violated in custody and enhancing compensation from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 20 lakh, reported as then the highest custodial-death award in India. The court refused the prayers for sanction and suspension against other officers and stressed its observations must not influence the pending murder trial.
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 10 April 2012 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1017 of 2005, the Bombay High Court (Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar, P.D. Kode, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: PSI, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai; Police Constable, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai; Police Constable, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai; Police Constable, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000).
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 10 April 2012 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.
“As aforesaid, it is a case of violation of fundamental rights of a Mumbai man, who mysteriously disappeared and presumably died, whilst in police custody. This position is virtually accepted in the criminal action initiated by the State (presently against …” (para 18)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.
(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.
