CW-2025-0022Mumbai Suburban, MaharashtraJudgment 29 September 2025

Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra

…the court found respondents 3-4 invoked s.409 'unilaterally without seeking permission of the superiors, as required' to avoid s.41A notice, calling it 'gross abuse of law' (para 17); 'high-handedness' was the petitioner's submission, not the court's word — drop or re-attribute…. 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 29 September 2025 in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 23953/2024, the Bombay High Court (Coram: Revati Mohite Dere, Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai; Police Sub-Inspector, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).

Register number
MH 01 CW 0048
Case reference
Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 23953/2024 / 2025:BHC-AS:41975-DB
Court and date
Bombay High Court (Coram: Revati Mohite Dere, Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.), 29 September 2025
Officer(s) at the material time
Inspector of Police, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai; Police Sub-Inspector, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“In view of the above, we hold and delcare [sic] that the arrest of the Petitioner on 23.10.2024 by the respondents, was illegal and without lawful authority.” (at para 18)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

Judgment dated 29 September 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

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.

“In view of the above, we hold and delcare [sic] that the arrest of the Petitioner on 23.10.2024 by the respondents, was illegal and without lawful authority.” (para 18)

Institutional response

1
29 Sep 2025

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: 2025:BHC-AS:41975-DB
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

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