16 Jan 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench recorded adverse findings against police personnel.
adverse finding compensation.
Source: 2026:BHC-NAG:684-DB
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0072Nagpur, MaharashtraJudgment 16 January 2026
Nagpur Man vs State Of Mah, Thr Home Department
The High Court held that the petitioner was wrongfully arrested and no procedure prescribed by law was followed in Crime No.159/2019. The High Court held that the departmental inquiry report was an eyewash and that senior officers tried to shield the wrongful acts of the field staff. The High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and Sessions Trial (NDPS) No.27/2019. The High Court left compensation to a separate remedy and expressed trust that the State would start service action.
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 16 January 2026 in CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.397 OF 2019, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Coram: Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ.) adjudicated the matter concerning 3 police personnel, namely: Constable, Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur; Police Sub-Inspector, Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur; Police Inspector (PSO), Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur.
- Register number
- MH 31 CW 0018
- Case reference
- CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.397 OF 2019 / 2026:BHC-NAG:684-DB
- Court and date
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Coram: Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ.), 16 January 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur; Police Sub-Inspector, Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur; Police Inspector (PSO), Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- the Section 21(b) of NDPS Act; the Section 29 of NDPS Act
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It is, thus, clear that the petitioner was wrongfully arrested and no procedure as prescribed under law was followed.” (at para para 18)
- 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 16 January 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
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.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“It is, thus, clear that the petitioner was wrongfully arrested and no procedure as prescribed under law was followed.” (para para 18)
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.