CW-2026-0017Indore, Madhya PradeshJudgment 22 April 2026

Indore Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. In the early hours of 29.12.2025 the petitioner was picked up after a minor restaurant altercation in Indore, beaten by constables and [name withheld], and assaulted further inside Lasudiya Police Station in an area without CCTV coverage. The State denied assault and claimed the petitioner was taken to a camera-blind room used by women officers. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) held the missing visuals were not natural and drew an adverse inference against the delinquent officers, corroborated by injury photographs and witness statements, and awarded Rs. 10,000 compensation for the hardship. The Court also directed preservation of records and systemic CCTV and body-worn-camera measures for Indore police stations. 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 22 April 2026 in WP No. 55 of 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Subodh Abhyankar, J.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 10,000.

Register number
MP 09 CW 0029
Case reference
WP No. 55 of 2026
Court and date
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Subodh Abhyankar, J.), 22 April 2026
Officer(s) at the material time
Not identified in the cited sources (Lasudiya Police Station)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“This Court is of the considered opinion that non-availability of such visuals of an incident which took place near and also in the police station, is not natural and is enough to draw an adverse inference against the delinquent officers, …” (at para 13)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 10,000.
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 22 April 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial torturePrimary
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.

“This Court is of the considered opinion that non-availability of such visuals of an incident which took place near and also in the police station, is not natural and is enough to draw an adverse inference against the delinquent officers, …” (para 13)

Institutional response

1
22 Apr 2026

Order issued

Concluded
Madhya Pradesh High Court External · Binding

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: WP No. 55 of 2026
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.