The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that about-16-year-old a 16-year-old boy, picked up on suspicion of pick-pocketing at the Sai temple on 31-03-2016 and put in the Shirdi police lock-up without age enquiry, arrest panchnama or intimation to parents, died in the lock-up the same day. The court concluded it was a case of custodial death at the hands of Shirdi police officials in violation of Article 21 and the D.K. Basu safeguards, rejecting the State's denial of liability. It left the homicidal-versus-suicidal question and the Section 302 prayer to the trial court in Crime 235/2016 (charge-sheet filed against five officers). The court directed the State to deposit Rs 5 lakh ex gratia compensation in court within 45 days (8% interest on default) for equal division between the parents, with liberty to recover from the erring officials once liability is fastened. The officers were charge-sheeted in Crime No. 235 of 2016 at Shirdi Police Station; the court left individual guilt and the homicidal-versus-suicidal question to the trial, recording no finding against any individual. 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 26 November 2020 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1548 of 2016, the Bombay High Court (Coram: T.V. Nalawade, Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 7 police personnel, namely: Police Naik (B.No. 450), Shirdi Police Station; Police Naik (B.No. 1118), Shirdi Police Station; Police Station Officer (B.No. 745), Shirdi Police Station; Police Naik (B.No. 2132), Shirdi Police Station; Police Naik (B.No. 1920), Shirdi Police Station; Policeman, Sai temple security, Shirdi; Police Naik (B.No. 1246), Sai temple security, Shirdi, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
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 26 November 2020 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.
“No enquiry was conducted about the age of [a 16-year-old boy], whether he was juvenile and straightway put up him in the lock up which unfortunately resulted into his custodial death.” (para 17)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.
(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.
