The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Baramati man, a labourer of Karjat (Ahmednagar), was forcibly picked up on 14 June 2009 by Baramati police without arrest memo, station-diary entry or permission to enter another district; his wife alleged a constable repeatedly demanded Rs. 10 lakh for his release. A Baramati man died in police custody, and the officers gave shifting accounts (accident, then suicide), gave no first aid and cremated the body at Baramati. The Court held he was taken into custody in a totally illegal manner in gross violation of D.K. Basu safeguards, and that the police version of death was totally inconsistent so the officers had to explain it. It awarded Rs. 4,50,000 compensation (inclusive of Rs. 1,00,000 under a government scheme) with 8% interest plus Rs. 25,000 costs on the officers, and directed an ADGP-rank enquiry into whether the death was accidental or homicidal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
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 31 March 2012 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1795 of 2011, the Bombay High Court (Coram: A.S. Oka, J.) returned findings adverse to 7 police personnel, namely: Senior Police Inspector, Baramati City Police Station, Pune; Assistant Police Inspector, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 4.5 lakh (Rs 4,50,000).
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 31 March 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.
“A Baramati man was in the custody of the police officers, and their own version of death of a Baramati man is totally inconsistent.” (para 41)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 450,000.
(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.
