CW-2020-0012Beed, MaharashtraJudgment 1 December 2020

Kumshi Man and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad) allowed the petition of a Kumshi man (33) and a Kumshi man (34) of Kumshi, holding their six-day detention from 30 January 2013 illegal and awarding Rs 50,000 to each petitioner (Rs 1 lakh total) payable by the State within 45 days (8% interest on default), with liberty to fasten responsibility on the concerned police officer and the then Executive Magistrate and recover. Arrested by Beed Rural police on an FIR under ss. 323/324/504/506/34 IPC and granted bail the same day by the JMFC, they were re-taken in custody and produced before the Executive Magistrate on a bare Section 107 CrPC report, which imposed an onerous interim bond under Section 116(3) CrPC. The Court held the Magistrate's order illegal and without jurisdiction, and found mala fides in the police action intended to keep them behind bars. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 1 December 2020 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 574 of 2013, the Bombay High Court (Coram: T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Police Head Constable, Beed Rural Police Station; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Beed Division, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).

Register number
MH 23 CW 0005
Case reference
Criminal Writ Petition No. 574 of 2013
Court and date
Bombay High Court (Coram: T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.), 1 December 2020
Officer(s) at the material time
Police Head Constable, Beed Rural Police Station; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Beed Division
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“These circumstances show that there were mala fides and the intention of the police was to see that the Petitioners are arrested and they are kept behind bars for a few days.”
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
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.

The Bombay High Court judgment dated 1 December 2020 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“These circumstances show that there were mala fides and the intention of the police was to see that the Petitioners are arrested and they are kept behind bars for a few days.”

Institutional response

1
1 Dec 2020

Order issued

Concluded
Bombay High Court External · Binding

The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: Criminal Writ Petition No. 574 of 2013
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

0
Not yet re-checked.

No published follow-up check has been recorded for this incident.

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.