The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that Rahuri and Local Crime Branch police illegally arrested and detained agriculturist a Rahuri man from 19 to 22 August 2012, dragging him from court under a sham Section 151 CrPC and Chapter VIII procedure without recording reasons, to torture, humiliate and teach him a lesson. Two inquiry reports supported the petitioner, and the court rejected the officers' belated apology and procedural justification. Holding the detention a gross violation of Article 21 that shocked the conscience of the court, it awarded Rs 3,00,000 compensation payable by the State by 22 December 2013, with liberty to recover from the four guilty officers for their deliberate dereliction of duty. 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 22 October 2013 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 964 of 2012, the Bombay High Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Ashok Rajput (Police Inspector); Vikramsing Pawar (Police Inspector); L. A. Kamble (Investigating Officer (B.No. 1096)); Dagadu Ujagare (Court Constable / Police Head Constable), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
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 22 October 2013 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.
“Our conclusions are: there is apparent, patent incontrovertible violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India; it, indeed, shocks the conscience of the Court.” (para 23)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.
(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.
