CW-2026-0022Prayagraj, Uttar PradeshJudgment 29 May 2026

Handia Man vs The State of U.P. & Ors.

Rewrite: attribute inquiry-report criticism to the petitioner's pleadings (para 5), not to a Court holding; record Dubey's version (personal affidavit 03.12.2025: compromise letter per GD No.23 dated 27.11.2022, denied pressure) and the Court's rejection of it as tacit denial that is no denial (paras 11-12); attribute Rs.20,000 bribe claim to petitioner and note Court expressly declined to go into it (para 14). 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 May 2026 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3807 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the In-charge, Police Outpost, Outpost Baraut, PS Handia, Prayagraj, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 25,000.

Register number
UP 70 CW 0003
Case reference
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3807 of 2023
Court and date
Allahabad High Court (Coram: J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar, JJ.), 29 May 2026
Officer(s) at the material time
In-charge, Police Outpost, Outpost Baraut, PS Handia, Prayagraj
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“In the totality of circumstances, we hold that the petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty by Dubey, a police officer, in the colour of exercise of authority of the State, and for the aforesaid act, the petitioner must be …” (at para 22)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 25,000.
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 May 2026. 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 the totality of circumstances, we hold that the petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty by Dubey, a police officer, in the colour of exercise of authority of the State, and for the aforesaid act, the petitioner must be …” (para 22)

Institutional response

1
29 May 2026

Order issued

Concluded
Allahabad High Court External · Binding

The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3807 of 2023
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.