The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. The petitioner, an accused in Crime No. 157/2009 of Hingoli police station, was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by the High Court, but investigating officer PI [name withheld] refused to honour it, arrested him and detained him illegally overnight till production before the Magistrate the next day, who granted bail. On the Court's direction the Additional CJM, Hingoli inquired and reported in November 2018 that there was substance in the illegal-detention allegation against the IO. The Aurangabad Bench allowed the writ, holding the detention by the police machinery breached the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, and awarded Rs. 2,00,000 compensation (12% interest on default), leaving it open to the State to fix responsibility and recover from the erring officials. The wife's companion plea for quashing the FIR was dismissed. 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 9 July 2019 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 2010 (with Criminal Application No. 78 of 2012), the Bombay High Court (Coram: T.V. Nalawade, Mangesh S. Patil, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Hingoli; Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
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 9 July 2019 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.
“Such illegal detention can easily be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the respondent no.3 which surprisingly is being endorsed by the respondent no.2 who is the Superintendent of Police.” (para 10)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.
(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.
