11 Sep 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe High Court of Judicature at Bombay recorded adverse findings against police personnel.
adverse finding compensation.
Source: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2020
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0063Mumbai, MaharashtraJudgment 11 September 2025
Mumbai Man And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
The High Court examined the death of a 22-year-old within hours of being taken to Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station. The High Court held that many loose strings emerged from the record and that the case deserved transfer to the CBI. The High Court held that the record falsified the police version that CCTVs were uninstalled due to renovation work. The High Court transferred further investigation to the CBI and kept compensation claims pending.
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 11 September 2025 in CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2020, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge, Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.) adjudicated the matter concerning 4 police personnel, namely: Assistant Police Inspector, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Senior Police Inspector (SHO), Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Constable, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Police Naik, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station.
- Register number
- MH 01 CW 0050
- Case reference
- CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2020
- Court and date
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge, Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.), 11 September 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Police Inspector, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Senior Police Inspector (SHO), Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Constable, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Police Naik, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “This, therefore, falsifies the version of the Police authorities that the CCTVs were uninstalled due to renovation work.” (at para para 31)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Adverse finding.
- 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.
Current position
Judgment dated 11 September 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
Custodial deathPrimary
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.
“This, therefore, falsifies the version of the Police authorities that the CCTVs were uninstalled due to renovation work.” (para para 31)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
24 Sep 2026
(Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).)
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.