Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: AIR Online 2019 Bom 936
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2019-0025Mumbai Suburban, MaharashtraJudgment 6 March 2019
Mumbai Police personnel v. State of Maharashtra and Others
The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. On 11 November 2006, personnel of the D.N. Nagar and Versova police stations abducted Ramnarayan Gupta alias Lakhanbhaiya and [name withheld], and Gupta was shot dead in what was projected as an encounter. A Magistrate inquiry under section 176(1A) CrPC concluded the encounter was fake, leading to an SIT, FIR and the conviction of 21 accused including 11 policemen, sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court on 12 July 2013. While their appeals were pending, the State suspended the policemen's sentences for six months under section 432 CrPC and released them. The High Court held the suspension order perverse and bad in law, showing non-application of mind and reliance on irrelevant material, and quashed it, restoring the operation of the life sentences. 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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 6 March 2019 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4845 of 2015, the Bombay High Court (Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari, Revati Mohite Dere, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of 11 police personnel, namely: Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police.
- Register number
- MH 01 CW 0032
- Case reference
- Criminal Writ Petition No. 4845 of 2015 / AIR Online 2019 Bom 936
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari, Revati Mohite Dere, JJ.), 6 March 2019
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 119 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Courts cannot be expected to be silent spectators to such decisions, which are blatantly perverse and unsustainable in law.” (at para 26)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment.
- 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.
Current position
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 6 March 2019 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
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.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“Courts cannot be expected to be silent spectators to such decisions, which are blatantly perverse and unsustainable in law.” (para 26)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
6 Mar 2019
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: AIR Online 2019 Bom 936
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record
Follow-up history
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.